Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Education Branch (Arts Graduates)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many arts graduates in the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force were promoted to the rank of wing commander on or after 1st January, 1959.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Amery): Six squadron leaders with degrees in arts have been promoted since 1st January, 1959.

Mr. Johnson: While I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a rate of promotion six times greater than the total for the previous eight years, may I ask if he thinks that offers a satisfactory career for highly qualified candidates?

Mr. Amery: When the new careers structure was introduced in 1959, the officers concerned had an opportunity to reduce their retiring age from 53 to 48 or to elect to retire after 20 years' service. The majority of them decided to go on until the age of 53.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many arts graduates holding the rank of squadron leader in the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force have less than ten years to serve before retirement; and what are their prospects of promotion.

Mr. Amery: Forty squadron leaders with degrees in arts subjects are due to retire within the next ten years. Our plans for these non-specialist graduates allow for a steady flow of promotions,

but individual promotion prospects will naturally vary with ability.

Mr. Johnson: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he thinks that that Answer is fully in accord with the Answer given to me by the Under-Secretary of State on 3rd August, 1959, when he wrote to me and told me that the prospects of promotion to the rank of wing commander for these officers were good, provided they came up to the required standard?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. I think that my hon. Friend represented the position correctly.

Pensions (Commutation)

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Air upon what criteria he bases his decisions on applications for commutation of pensions in cases where personnel propose to purchase houses for owner-occupation by themselves and their families.

Mr. Amery: The Army Pensions Office advises me on these cases. I have to be satisfied that commutation would be to the definite and permanent advantage of the pensioner. The maximum a pensioner may commute for house purchase is £350.

Mr. Gower: While it may be absolutely necessary to dissuade personnel from making decisions which may prove improvident and which they may well regret, cannot my right hon. Friend agree that in cases of house purchase a different view could be taken of applications? Does not he feel that in some cases too restrictive a view is taken of such applications and particularly so in the case of a constituent of mine about whom I have been in correspondence with him recently?

Mr. Amery: These arrangements are of long standing. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a faintly paternalistic flavour about them. I should like to find time to consider this with my colleagues in the other Service Departments before I put forward any views about how they could be improved.

Mr. Gower: Can my right hon. Friend say that this limit will be reviewed, as it seems extremely low in the light of the present cost of houses in most areas?

Mr. Amery: I do not want to give any commitment today to my hon. Friend. As I say, I think there is something here which perhaps ought to be considered.

Senior Executive Officers, Air Ministry

Mr. McKay: asked the Secretary of State for Air what investigations he has made into the distinction between senior experimental officers in the Meteorological Office serving overseas with the Armed Forces and senior executive officers of the Air Ministry whom a Royal Commission recommended in 1956 should be placed in the same rank with the same remuneration and standing; and why the recommendations of the Royal Commission have not been followed.

Mr. Amery: I am not aware of any such recommendation.

Mr. McKay: If the right hon. Gentleman had studied my Question he would have seen that this is not a matter of a recommendation. Is not he aware that, when these officers are in this country, no distinction of any kind is made, but that when they are sent abroad a little paper is given to each of them which makes a distinction which the Royal Commission does not allow for? Will he investigate this problem once again?

Mr. Amery: I will investigate anything which the hon. Member asks me to. But his Question referred to a recommendation, and I was not aware of any such recommendation.

Royal Air Force Station, Pucklechurch

Mr. Corfield: asked the Secretary of State for Air when he expects to be able to dispose of the former Royal Air Force Station at Pucklechurch, and for what purpose; and whether he will make a statement indicating the cause of the delay and how it is proposed to dispose of the buildings.

Mr. Amery: I have suspended disposal of this station for the time being in view of a proposal by the Prison Commission to use part of it for a remand centre.

Mr. Corfield: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this air station has been unoccupied for over a year? In view of the anxiety locally about its future, will he try to expedite his decision as much as possible?

Mr. Amery: We had already gone some way towards arranging its disposal when the Prison Commission put forward its latest proposal.

Lightning Fighter Aircraft

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Air when the Lightning fighter aircraft will be fully operational; and what further improvements he has requested for future Lightning aircraft.

Mr. Amery: The Lightning is fully operational now. The Mark 3 Lightning will have better performance in range, speed and altitude, more advanced electronic equipment, and will carry an improved air-to-air guided weapon.

Mr. Cronin: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him to take steps to improve the development of fighter aircraft, bearing in mind that the Russian interceptor fighter squadrons are nearly all equipped with MiG 21s, which are, in some respects, superior to the Lightning?

Mr. Amery: We are moving as fast as we can.

Married Quarters (Design and Layout)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he has taken to improve the design and layout of new married quarters in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Amery: Improved designs and layouts have been produced and are now being studied.

Mr. Cronin: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reassurance, may I ask if he will bear in mind that there has been considerable dissatisfaction in the past few years about the layout and general design of married quarters? Will he ensure that this improvement in design is maintained?

Mr. Amery: I hope to be able to give the hon. Gentleman satisfaction.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Flags of Convenience

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he has taken during the last twelve months to counter the effects on British shipping of competition from flags of convenience fleets; and what has been the result of those steps.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): This is largely a matter of taxation. The United Kingdom shipping industry has enjoyed a 40 per cent. investment allowance since 1957 and under present conditions flags of convenience have temporarily lost much of their competitive tax-free advantage.

Mr. Hughes: As a practical matter, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the wisdom and experience of the National Union of Seamen would be a guiding lighthouse for him? Will he say how often he has discussed this problem with that union?

Mr. Marples: I personally have not discussed this with the N.U.S., but I know that it is interested. The General Council Survey of British Shipping—that is, the industry itself—said that under present conditions tax-free advantages of flags of convenience have temporarily lost their significance.

Sir L. Ropner: Does not my right hon. Friend think that conditions of freight markets may improve some day, and that, if they do, the advantages of tax-free ships will return in force?

Mr. Marples: At the present moment, quite a few allowances have not been absorbed by profits, so tax has not been paid.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, unless profits accrue as the result of operations of shipping companies, the question of allowances does not arise?

Mr. Marples: I agree, but broadly speaking the industry is doing quite well with this 40 per cent. investment allowance, which is twice what any other industry gets. The Government are considering important matters like the problems of tramp steamers.

Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the shipbuilding and ship-repairing position in the Tyneside area, compared with what it was a year ago, with particular reference to the Wallsend shipyards.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): The position of shipbuilding and ship-repairing in Wallsend and on Tyneside generally has not changed significantly in the past year.

Mr. McKay: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that position does not constitute the best possible climate for employment? Will he keep his eye on the Tyneside district and see if he can do something to improve conditions?

Mr. Hay: The fact that the situation has not deteriorated in the last year, considering what has been happening in shipbuilding and ship-repairing generally, is not to be sneezed at. We are not complacent about the situation, either in that area or elsewhere. We will do what we can to help.

Mr. Mellish: It is a curious thing to say that if a situation has not got worse then that makes it rather good. Has the Ministry any particular plans? What are its ideas and hopes for the future?

Mr. Hay: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question about that.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that the shipbuilding industry all over the country is suffering from severe competition from the Continent, as shipyards there are undercutting our prices? Does not he agree that if our industry and the trade unions in it do not look out, there will not be any employment in the industry at all?

Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend has pointed out the absolute necessity for the shipbuilding and repairing industries to be competitive.

New Cunard Liner

Lord Balniel: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will publish the list of shipyards approved by his Department to which the Cunard Steam-Ship Company are about to send invitations to tender for a new Cunarder.

Mr. Marples: The Cunard Steam-Ship Company will invite tenders from Messrs. John Brown, Cammell Laird, Fairfield, Harland & Wolff, Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson and Vickers-Armstrongs. I understand that the last two propose to submit a joint tender.

Lord Balniel: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that information, may I ask if he can say whether the Cunard Steam-Ship Company, Limited, in asking these yards to submit tenders, will, in fairness to them, make it clear that as yet no Parliamentary sanction for the expenditure of public money has been granted?

Mr. Marples: I think that my hon. Friend will see something happening very soon.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Transport whether, before introducing legislation to give a subsidy to the Cunard Company, he will satisfy himself that the company is not a member of any price-fixing association.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. The Cunard Company, like almost all liner companies, belongs to one or more Shipping Conferences.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Is not this very unsatisfactory? Is it not wrong that public money should be given to a company which is a member, for example, of the North Atlantic Shipping Conference, which exists to maintain freight and passenger rates across the Atlantic?

Mr. Marples: A formal investigation on more than one occasion has confirmed the value to shipowners, shippers and the public of the conference system.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: By whom were these investigations carried out? Should not the matter be looked at again?

Mr. Marples: It has been looked at. It was quite satisfactory. If my hon. Friend puts down a Question, I will give him full details of the whole inquiry.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. R. Carr: asked the Minister of Transport what requests he has received for a subsidy from shipping companies other than the Cunard Company.

Mr. Marples: None, Sir.

Mr. Carr: Has my right hon. Friend consulted other shipping companies? If so, can he say whether they agree that if any subsidy is to be given to the shipping industry it is right for it to be concentrated on this one route and this one company?

Mr. Marples: They were seen about this in the early stages and made no comment. But this point forms one of the recommendations in the survey of British shipping which has been sent to me, and we are now discussing it with the General Council of British Shipping.

Mr. Grimond: Will the right hon. Gentleman qualify that answer? The Government have received constant requests from shipping companies in Scotland, especially from the Orkney Steam Navigation Company. The Government have passed a Measure enabling a subsidy to be provided. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, this Bill having been passed, no comprehensive scheme has so far been produced to give assistance to a shipping company whose services are absolutely essential to some of the people in the North of Scotland? Is he aware that these people will very much resent it if the Government give a large subsidy to the largely luxury traffic across the Atlantic before looking after the needs of people much nearer home?

Mr. Marples: Questions of subsidies for shipping companies in Scotland should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. J. Howard: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any other passenger routes where British passenger liners are subjected to the same degree of subsidised competition as exists on the North Atlantic route?

Mr. Marples: The North Atlantic route is the most heavily subsidised shipping route in the world.

Mr. R. Carr: asked the Minister of Transport whether, before approving the


placing of a contract for a new Cunarder with assistance from public funds, he will satisfy himself that the shipbuilding industry is taking action along the lines of the recent Department of Scientific and Industrial Research Report on the industry.

Mr. Marples: The industry has undertaken to collaborate with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and my Ministry in implementing the recommendations of this Report, and good progress is being made with the further studies it called for.

Mr. Carr: Will my right hon. Friend satisfy himself that this collaboration is reaching the stage of practical action before he provides any subsidy?

Mr. Marples: Yes. My hon. Friend can be assured that we shall press on with the Report of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on the industry.

Mr. H. Hynd: Before giving any subsidies in this case, will the Minister take care not to offend his hon. Friends, who are against subsidies from public funds in principle, except for their own industries?

Mr. Marples: It ought to be made clear that I cannot give a subsidy. It is this House which will approve the subsidy.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the Minister say whether there is still no hope of having atomic energy in time for this great venture?

Mr. Marples: There is absolutely no hope at all.

Mr. Chataway: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to ensure the concentration of the shipbuilding industry into fewer and larger units before he asks for tenders for the new Cunard liners.

Mr. Marples: The yards which will be invited to tender are already large.

Mr. Chataway: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that an element of subsidy is being injected into the shipbuilding industry, and does not he think it reasonable that if they are going to subsidise an industry the Government

should take some responsibility for encouraging greater efficiency?

Mr. Marples: The negotiations with the Cunard Company and the Chandos Committee's Report took account of the shipbuilding yards as they then existed, and no representations were made that the shipbuilding yards should be altered. Each of the shipbuilding yards asked to tender is in a place where employment is needed.

Mr. Strauss: Is it the policy of the Government that the shipbuilding industry should be concentrated in a smaller number of larger yards?

Mr. Marples: We had better wait until we see what the Advisory Committee says.

Mr. Popplewell: Can the Minister say when he expects the return of these tenders?

Mr. Marples: I cannot even say at the moment when they are going out.

Mr. J. Rodgers: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make it a condition of tenders for the new Cunard liner that they shall only be sent to shipyards in which restrictive practices do not occur.

Mr. Marples: Competition for this order will be very keen, and I do not propose to interfere with the Cunard Company's plans, for the reason my hon. Friend has suggested.

Mr. Rodgers: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the mounting misgivings among the other shipping companies, and also in this House and in the country generally, at the prospect of taxpayers' money being given to one company to produce an obsolescent, if not obsolete, national status symbol? Is not he aware that these misgivings will be translated into resentment if the taxpayers' money is used in shipyards where it will lead to inflated costs, owing to the prevalence of restrictive practices?

Mr. Marples: In the matter of restrictive practices, such as demarcation, the employers and the employees are now getting together in a reasonable spirit, and I do not want to do anything to exacerbate the situation while the negotiations are in progress. As for the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary


question, his assessment of the situation does not agree with the recommendations of the Chandos Committee.

Lord Balniel: Does my right hon. Friend recollect answering my Question on this subject, when he talked about further developments occurring before very long? Can he give an assurance that these developments will be announced verbally in the House before we rise for Easter?

Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend must wait to see what these developments are.

Mr. Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of us believe that the building of this ship will provide a tremendous shot in the arm to the British shipbuilding industry, and that it means a great deal to the shipyards? Will he not be put off by hon. Members opposite, who are quite willing to accept a £200 million a year subsidy for the farmers?

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Transport whether in view of the effect upon trans-Atlantic passenger traffic, he will consult the chairman of British Overseas Airways Corporation before final arrangements are made to subsidise the new Cunard liner.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir.

Mr. Channon: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that since British Overseas Airways Corporation made a loss last year and the Cunard Company made a profit, and since to some extent they will be in competition over these routes, it would be advisable to get the views of the Corporation before these arrangements are put into effect?

Mr. Marples: I do not think so. The Chandos Committee demonstrated in its recommendations that shipping and air transport were complementary rather than competitive, and that what really happens is that a great number of business people go by air one way and by ship the other way, for health reasons.

Mr. Worsley: asked the Minister of Transport what consultations he has had with the Chamber of Shipping on the proposed subsidy for a new Cunarder.

Mr. Marples: At my request, the General Council of British Shipping last June commented on the proposals which

the Chandos Committee had made for Government assistance towards the replacement of "Queen Mary". These comments were given in confidence. Subsequently, in its recent survey the General Council included a recommendation bearing on this subject.

Mr. Worsley: Do I understand, therefore, from my right hon. Friend that the Chamber of Shipping approves of this subsidy to one line for one venture and feels that this is the best way to help the British shipping industry?

Mr. Marples: As I have said, the comments were made in confidence but in its recent survey, the General Council of British Shipping included as No. 10 of its recommendations one relating to the paying of a subsidy to the Cunard Company. That recommendation is now being discussed.

Mr. Strauss: Will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us on this side of the House and give us some information about this extraordinary lobby on the benches behind him, which is pretty near widespread, against giving any help towards the building of the liner? We are entirely in the dark as to why there is this sudden opposition to giving a Government subsidy to private industry. There must be something behind it. Could the right hon. Gentleman please tell us?

Mr. Marples: It is not for me to say what motivation my hon. Friends have.

Shipbuilding Advisory Committee (Sub-Committee's Report)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport if he has now received the Report of the special sub-committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee set up to investigate the need for Government assistance to British shipyards to enable them to compete on equitable terms with their foreign competitors who are receiving financial assistance from their respective Governments; if he has yet reached a decision on the proposals contained in the Report; and if he will now state in detail his plans to deal with the relevant problems.

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the interim Report from the sub-committee of the


Shipbuilding Advisory Committee, if he will now state what steps he is taking to help meet the threat of heavy redundancy in British ship-building yards; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: I have nothing to add at present to the Answer I gave on 15th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir. B. Janner).

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that he is far too complacent about the state of the industry which vitally affects the economy and the unemployment problem in Britain? Will he consult the Leader of the House with a view to having a day set aside for a debate on this urgent and important problem?

Mr. Marples: Personally I would welcome a debate. I think that it could have taken place yesterday with more advantage to the nation.

Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the extreme urgency of this problem in view of the imminent threat of heavy unemployment throughout the shipbuilding industry in this country and particularly in Belfast? Will he do all that he can to expedite the reference to the main Committee in order that its Report may be acted on with speed?

Mr. Marples: I can see that the Report is obtained but whether it is acted on depends to a large extent on the industry itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) pointed out in a supplementary question a few moments ago, the crucial task is how to beat foreign yards in both price and performance. Here the industry itself has an important task. All I can say is that I hope that management and men in this industry, who are now consulting together, will see that the best use is made of modern techniques on both sides of the industry.

Mr. Lee: If the right hon. Gentleman is all that concerned that the House should debate this subject, why does not the Government find time for it? Why should he merely criticise the Opposition and what they do in relation to Supply Days? I am sure that from our point of view we should very much welcome a Government initiative in order that we could debate this industry.

Mr. Marples: The point which I made was that it would have been better if the Opposition had yesterday chosen this subject for debate.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order——

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that 300,000 tons of shipping was constructed in yards on the Continent for British shipowners last year? What is he doing about that problem?

Mr. Marples: The point is that foreign yards have been quoting lower prices and early delivery dates. Any assistance which the Government may give to an industry which cannot compete in world markets will be of use only on a temporary basis and never on a permanent basis.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Cyril Osborne.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. I rose earlier to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the shocking complacency of the Minister I hereby give notice—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member departs from the traditional formula and makes a speech. He appeared to me, by sitting down again, to have abandoned his previous point of order, and he is now out of time.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. I sat down, Mr. Speaker, because I thought that you called my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery). I rise on a point of order, and I hereby give notice, in the time-honoured fashion, that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Overseas Trade

Mr. C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that for the first time in history British ships carried less than half Britain's overseas trade amounting to 49 per cent. for 1960 against 51 per cent. for 1959, 54 per cent. for 1956 and 57 per cent. for 1938; what is the reason for this loss of trade; what further help he proposes to give to British shipping; what discussions he has had with the shipping interests on this subject; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: The percentages quoted apply only to imports: the corresponding figures for exports are considerably higher. All these matters are now being discussed with the General Council of British Shipping in connection with its recent recommendations.

Mr. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Council of Shipping feels that a good deal of its troubles arise from certain aspects of the American interests where there is discrimination against our own shipping? Would he pass on to the Prime Minister the idea that he might raise this in Washington with President Kennedy when he goes there, in order to see how far it is true that American interests are unreasonably undercutting our British shipping interests?

Mr. Marples: I have seen the president of the Council of Shipping on this very point. He is now in Washington. Quite a number of representations are being made to the Americans at the moment.

Sir L. Ropner: Why is not my right hon. Friend in America instead of asking the Council of Shipping to deal with matters which are the concern of the Government and over which the shipping industry in this country has no control? Is it not true that the Minister has so much on his plate at the moment that he simply has not time to deal seriously with shipping problems?

Mr. Marples: The answer to the last part of that supplementary question is "No, Sir". In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, I am not in America because I am here answering Questions in the House of Commons, which is normally my duty. I did not ask the Council of Shipping to go to America. Its representatives went there and the Government gave them all facilities to see our ambassador and to make all proper representations which they themselves thought fit. Both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself have made representations in person in Washington.

Chamber of Shipping (Proposals)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Transport what conclusions he has reached following his examination of proposals made by the Chamber of Ship-

ping on the needs of the Mercantile Marine.

Mr. Marples: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the right hon. Member on 1st March.

Mr. Shinwell: Am I to understand from a previous Answer to a similar Question earlier this afternoon that all the right hon. Gentleman has done so far arising from his examination of the proposals of the Chamber of Shipping is to provide facilities for shipowners to go to Washington? Is that the position? Does he agree that the time has come to ask the Prime Minister to create a Ministry of Shipping?

Mr. Marples: The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is "No". Referring to the first part, we have done a great deal more than facilitate—not make—arrangements with the chairman of the Chamber of Shipping. We have entered into negotiations with it. As far as its main recommendations are concerned, one of them, Recommendation 4, says:
Commercial treaties and trade agreements should embody the strongest possible antidiscrimination clauses.
We do that now. Recommendation 5 says:
The new Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development should include a committee comparable with the Maritime Transport Committee of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.
We achieved that before the Report was published. With regard to some of the more technical recommendations, we are discussing those now, and the chairman has expressed himself satisfied that the problems are being tackled in the right order and at the right speed.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that, in spite of that long rigmarole, there has been a further deterioration in the shipping industry?

Mr. Marples: No. The members of the shipping industry do not share that view, as can be seen from the quotations of shipping shares on the Stock Exchange.

Departmental Staff

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Transport how many of his staff are occupied with dealing with the affairs of


the Mercantile Marine and the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Marples: One thousand nine hundred and twenty-one, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: What are they doing?

Mr. Marples: They are working very hard. That accounts for the improvement in shipping in the last three months.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister serious in making that reply? Is he not treating with contempt not only the shipbuilding industry and the Mercantile Marine but hon. Members who are rightly interested in the future of British shipping?

Mr. Marples: I think that the right hon. Gentleman's second supplementary question was not extremely serious. In the Question I was asked how many staff were occupied dealing with the affairs of the Mercantile Marine and the shipbuilding industry. My answer was 1921, and they are occupied dealing with the affairs of the Mercantile Marine and the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Mellish: As there is genuine concern on both sides of the House about the state of the shipping industry today, is it not right that the Minister of Transport and Shipping should now take the initiative and come forward and state what the Government have in mind in a specific way either by a debate or some form of White Paper rather than have the delaying tactics which have gone on month after month?

Mr. Marples: They are not delaying tactics. We have achieved something in the last twelve months which has not been achieved before—that is, to get the Sub-Committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee to get the shipowners and the men together round the table to consider a report. It took years before they could get together round a table to make a joint committee to go into the question of shipbuilding.

Lighthouses, Red Sea (Maintenance)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport what arrangements have been made about the maintenance of lighthouses in the southern part of the Red Sea.

Mr. Hay: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the lighthouses on the islands of Abu Ail and Jabal-at-Tair which have been maintained by this country since the First World War. At our request, a meeting will be held in April under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation to consider the question of sharing the future cost of the lights among interested Governments.

Mr. Rankin: Obviously my Question has done some good. Will the hon. Gentleman encourage his right hon. Friend to go a little further and to hand the care and maintenance of these lighthouses over to the Suez Canal Commissioners, particularly as the right hon. Gentleman already has an enormous job at home looking after surface transport, shipbuilding and shipping in this country, and he might quite well leave the Red Sea to other people?

Mr. Hay: As far as I am aware, my right hon. Friend has no intention of going to visit these lighthouses in the near future. It would be far better to see what I.M.C.O. says about this when it meets in April.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Broughton-Hampson Green Motorway

Mr. E. Taylor: asked the Minister of Transport when work will be started on the Broughton-Hampson Green motorway between Preston and Lancaster.

Mr. Hay: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) on 25th January.

Mr. Taylor: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if he will consider developing the road from Preston to Warrington simultaneously with this? Is he aware that we think that it is necessary that the A.6 should be completed as well, because of the great congestion there will be in Lancashire if that is not done?

Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend's Question referred to the motorway between Preston and Lancaster. His supplementary question concerns a different matter. If he cares to put down another Question about that, I will consider it.

Selby Toll Bridge

Sir L. Ropner: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now announce when Selby Toll Bridge will be freed from tolls, and when work will be started on the Selby by-pass.

Mr. Hay: As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, negotiations with the toll owners showed that the probable cost of acquiring the tolls would greatly exceed the amount we feel the scheme would justify, and we are accordingly not prepared to proceed with it. As regards the second part of the Question, it is still too soon to forecast when work on the by-pass can begin.

Sir L. Ropner: Is my hon. Friend aware that in failing to free the Selby toll bridge his Department has a quite disgraceful record stretching back over a period of nearly a quarter of a century? Cannot he persuade his right hon. Friend to take action now to get rid of this antiquated anachronism, which has handicapped trade and industry in Selby for far too long a period?

Mr. Hay: I cannot accept, in the slightest degree, the strictures of my hon. and gallant Friend about the action of my right hon. Friend's Department. They are quite untrue. As far as we are concerned, we conceive that the correct solution for Selby's problems is the by-pass referred to in his original Question, and we believe that that is the best way of handling the problem.

East Yorkshire Motorway

Mr. Coulson: asked the Minister of Transport what conclusions he has reached on the construction of an East Yorkshire motorway to link the port of Hull with the Yorkshire motorway.

Mr. Hay: On present plans, the Lancashire-Yorkshire Motorway will terminate near Ledsham on the A.1. Through traffic between the A.1 and Hull will be served by improvements of the all-purpose roads. As my hon. Friend is aware, a number of new schemes are in hand or in prospect on this part of the trunk road system. We do not consider that any extension of the motorway will be called for.

Mr. Coulson: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if he will, when occasion arises, give urgent consideration to this matter of an eastern limb for the Yorkshire motorway and to other proposals which may improve the road communications to and from the Port of Hull?

Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir. We always bear these considerations in mind.

Motorways (Tolls)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the progress made, and the decisions taken, in respect to tolls on future motorways.

Mr. Marples: I have now received the report of the group which has been studying this question and I hope to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of dismay about the possibility that people will have to pay tolls on future motorways? Is he really serious about this business? Does this mean that the M.1 might be free, while tolls will have to be paid on other motorways? Or are all roads to have tolls in future? How can that be done without holding up progress in a modern age?

Mr. Marples: Perhaps the hon. Member will await the statement. I can assure him that in my Ministry we are serious about all the matters that we tackle.

Overpass Bridge, Hyde Park Corner

Mr. Leavey: asked the Minister of Transport where he intends to re-erect the present overpass bridge now in use near Hyde Park Corner when it is no longer required on its present site.

Mr. Hay: This bridge belongs to the contractors, but I am sure that the London County Council is alive to any possible further use which could be made of it.

Mr. Leavey: Now that we have had some experience of this comparatively inexpensive but very effective form of overpass, will my right hon. Friend


consider using it or something similar to it on some of the other road networks where, particularly in the summer months, we have immense traffic problems?

Mr. Hay: As I said in the Answer, the bridge is not ours but at the moment belongs to the contractors. It is for the London County Council and the contractors to decide whether it could be used elsewhere. We have investigated the possibility of using this temporary type of fly-over construction, but I am afraid that there are a number of difficulties involved, not least the fact that this type of construction is too light to carry the heavy types of traffic for which most of our all-purpose roads are designed.

Classified Road Improvement Schemes

Mr. Hilton: asked the Minister of Transport when he will announce his next list of priorities in important road projects.

Mr. Marples: I shall be informing local authorities within a week or so of the classified road improvement schemes which I can accept for grant within the next three years.

Mr. Hilton: I take it from the Minister's Answer that the list has not yet been prepared. While appreciating the special problem of London and other big towns and cities, may I ask whether in the next few days the Minister will bear in mind Norfolk's problems and especially the urgent need for a by-pass of King's Lynn which, after all, is the main trunk road from Norfolk to the Midlands?

Mr. Marples: I take note of that. Of course, there are hundreds of schemes throughout the country which have to be considered in priority, one being measured against the rest. I will look at the matter.

Mr. Bullard: Will the Minister indicate that he has been urged and even pestered by the hon. Member for King's Lynn for action on the King's Lynn by-pass? As the expectation that this plan will be included in an early stage in his report grows every day as the publication of the document is delayed, will he satisfy public opinion in the area that he will get on with this project very soon?

Mr. Marples: When my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) make representations it is not considered that he is pestering the Ministry. We are always delighted to see him or anybody else. I will take account of all the wishes of my hon. Friend and others. Those we please will not thank us and those we do not please will curse us.

Experimental Parking Schemes

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is still prepared to consider giving approval to experimental parking schemes submitted by a local authority; and whether, in view of doubts which exist in this matter, he will make a comprehensive statement on the subject.

Mr. Marples: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind experiments such as the disc parking scheme. I have made an Order which brought into force as from 20th March, the provision of Section 11 of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, under which such schemes may be made by local authorities. I am prepared to discuss with any local authority which wishes to make such a scheme the conditions under which it should operate.

Sir B. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present parking system, with people rushing from one parking meter to another, is creating an ulcerated nation? Is he prepared to do something to ease the position of those who require to park cars while carrying on their vocation?

Mr. Marples: We are finding that the parking meter system in London is the fairest all round to the motorists. This is the first I have heard about its causing ulcers. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we are still prepared to consider giving approval to experimental parking schemes. If Leicester has an experimental parking scheme in mind, I shall be perfectly prepared to consider it.

A.12 Road (By-passes)

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he has now finalised the line of the Kelvedon


and Feering by-pass; and when he anticipates work will start on this improvement to A.12;
(2) whether he has now finalised the line of the Stanway by-pass; and when he anticipates work will start on this improvement to A.12.

Mr. Hay: The line of the Stanway by-pass was laid down many years ago, though a small amendment at the eastern end was advertised in August, 1959. In view of the growth of traffic, however, it has been thought necessary to redesign the junction to provide grade separation. When this work is completed we shall re-advertise the line of the by-pass and also publish draft side-road Orders.
The line of the Kelvedon and Feering by-pass was settled in 1939, but proposals for alterations to the side roads may need a further Order.
It is too early to forecast when work will begin.

Mr. Harrison: While thanking my hon. Friend for his Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that for the last thirty years people have been waiting for the line of the Stanway by-pass to be fixed and for work to start? Can he not get on with it very soon, because there was a 13-mile traffic block last summer and the present indication of the traffic is that the road will be blocked practically from London to the East Coast unless something is done quickly?

Mr. Hay: We certainly recognise that the Stanway by-pass is very urgently required, and we also appreciate the heavy traffic volumes. That is why we are now re-designing the junction to provide grade separation. It is only in comparatively recent years that we have had sufficiently large sums of money available to carry out these highway schemes.

Mr. Ridsdale: Can my hon. Friend get our right hon. Friend to pay a personal visit one week-end in July or August to this road, for he might then understand the desperation we feel in East Anglia about money being spent on the road as early as possible? If necessary, we are quite prepared to have a toll road to provide the money to make it possible.

Mr. Hay: If my right hon. Friend accepted that invitation, perhaps someone would complain that he was not in Washington.

Heavy Goods Vehicles, London (All-night Parking)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport what action he is taking to deal with the inconvenience caused to many local residents by the all-night parking of heavy goods vehicles in residential areas of London.

Mr. Marples: The primary difficulty is the absence so far of sufficient off-street parking accommodation. I am in touch with the Metropolitan boroughs, and other bodies concerned, about this and other aspects of the problem.

Mr. Lipton: This is not good enough. Is the Minister not aware that with these great ten-ton and twenty-ton diesel lorries starting up every morning at 4 o'clock it is just like hell let loose in some of the residential streets of Brixton and other parts of London? Has not the time come for him to take some drastic action, because the law on the subject is absolutely inadequate?

Mr. Marples: If the hon. Gentleman will send me details of the streets involved, I will communicate with the Lambeth Borough Council, which is the parking authority for the area under the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960.

Mr. Mellish: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in London there is a very severe problem and that details have already been sent by a number of borough councils to the Home Office and to his Ministry? Surely it is a fair point to say that the law on the subject seems to be rather difficult. Will he seriously examine what can be done to prevent private citizens from having to lose a great deal of their rest at night because of this shocking nuisance?

Mr. Marples: There are two aspects of this question—the traffic amenity aspect and the aspect of annoyance to residents. The permanent solution is off-street parking, which is primarily the responsibility of the Metropolitan boroughs, and in that I will help all I can. With that, one can get adequate enforcement by the police. There is difficulty about


enforcement by the police when there is no other place where the trucks and heavy lorries can go. If the hon. Gentleman will send me details of the situation in Brixton—I have already had some details from Bermondsey—I will go into the matter with the authorities.

Mr. Manuel: Is there not another aspect? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that private enterprise is providing quite insufficient garage accommodation and is using public thoroughfares for all-night parking of these vehicles when it should provide garage facilities at its own expense, as is common place with private road users?

Mr. Marples: I think that in most cases the vehicle owners should find their own parking places. Whatever happens, a local authority might also provide parking places in its area and the private owners should pay for them.

Invalid Carriages (Parking Meter Charges)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the hardship caused to the users of invalid carriages who have to use parking meters as a result of being unable to leave their cars outside the parking area because they cannot walk; and if he will take steps to exempt the users of these vehicles from such charges.

Mr. Hay: We have the greatest sympathy with the disabled and have, therefore, provided in all the parking meter orders so far made that the local authority should have power to give an exemption from paying charges. A disabled driver should apply to the council for exemption.

Mr. Awbery: May I take it that the Minister has given instructions to local authorities to exempt cases of this character? I have in mind a man who lost two legs, and when he goes into a parking place he has to pay to park his car there, which is equivalent to charging him for stowing his crutches while he is doing his job. If the Minister has given instructions to the local authorities to exempt these people, I shall be perfectly satisfied.

Mr. Hay: No, Sir; we have not given the local authorities instructions. We have given them power to exempt disabled drivers. It is for the local authority

itself to decide whether to give a general exemption to all disabled drivers or to give exemption only to those who apply for exemption and can justify it being given to them. That is the precise position, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study my answer.

Mr. Awbery: Why not give instructions?

Mr. Dodds: What is the good of the Parliamentary Secretary saying what he has said when he knows only too well what the situation is? I have today had a letter from a constituent of mine who is badly disabled and will have to give up his job in the St. Pancras area because he cannot afford to pay the meter charges there. Ought not Parliament to be doing something in this respect for disabled people?

Mr. Hay: No, Sir; I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The operation of parking meters under parking meter orders is for the local authorities, for they are the parking meter authorities. We see no reason to give general exemption, but we say that if people can satisfy local authorities that they deserve exemption because they are disabled, that is the correct course to follow.

Mr. Strauss: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is aware of any local authority which has refused to give exemption or of any case where there has been any difficulty? If a local authority has refused, might there not be a case for Parliament taking further action?

Mr. Hay: I know of no local authority which has refused to give this exemption to genuine disabled people. There are cases where people claiming to be disabled have applied for exemption and have been refused.

Mr. Dodds: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment, together with the case to which I have just referred.

Main Roads, Cardiff (Children)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the danger to children going to school crossing the main Ninian Park Road and


Tudor Street Highway, Cardiff, at the Clare Road junction and the Plantagenet Street junction; and what action he intends to take to protect children at these points.

Mr. Hay: Neither we nor the Cardiff County Borough Council, which is the responsible authority, have received any representations regarding danger to children crossing Tudor Street. Where numbers of children have to cross a busy road, the normal practice is to provide a school crossing patrol, but this is a matter for the local education authority.

Mr. Thomas: In view of that inadequate reply, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that this Question is a representation? Is he further aware that there is a growing opinion in the locality that unless a child is injured or killed nothing will be done? Will he make representations to the local authority and indicate that there is concern by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West about this matter?

Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman has far greater influence with the local education authority than we have.

Mr. Thomas: I do not dispute that, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, as the lives and well-being of children are concerned, he will make representations for a watch to be kept on these spots during the next few weeks?

Mr. Hay: I will go this far with the hon. Gentleman. I will ask the divisional road engineer to let me have a report on conditions here and we can then see if any representations are needed.

Road Traffic Bill

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport if he can now say when he will introduce a Road Safety Bill; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: A Bill to make further provisions on road safety and other matters was presented in another place yesterday. Copies of the Bill are available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will be congratu-

lated on finding time for such an important Measure in his crowded programme? Will he say whether in the Bill he intends to make provision to put right something that went a little wrong in the Road Traffic (Driving of Motor Cycles) Bill by which persons trying to learn to drive a motor cycle and sidecar were prohibited from doing so on a motor cycle of over 250 cc.?

Mr. Marples: I think that was the Bill promoted by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett). Provision is made in the Bill for that.

Mr. Mellish: Is the Minister aware that the proposals in this Bill have been bandied about the House and that a number of Conservative hon. Members knew about them and were discussing them, yet at no time were any Members of the Opposition consulted on a matter which is clearly a non-party one? Does he not understand that this is the sort of thing which causes grave affront to many of us on this side of the House?

Mr. Marples: I have not consulted any of my hon. Friends on this. This is purely a Government matter and the Government are responsible for the publication of the Bill.

Mr. Lipton: Will the Minister ensure that something is put in the Road Traffic Bill to deal with the parking of heavy commercial vehicles in residential areas in London? I am sure that there is nothing in the Bill about that.

Mr. Marples: We dealt with that in the Bill passed in 1960, and the hon. Gentleman could have taken part in the debate if he so wished.

Barry-Cardiff Road

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Transport where the proposed improvements to the road B.4055 between Barry and Cardiff via Dinas-Powis are sited; and if he will state the nature of each such proposal.

Mr. Hay: The proposed improvements are, first, a diversion from the Merry Harriers Public House to the roundabout at Cogan Hill, which would serve as a link between A.4055 and A.4160; secondly, a diversion of the road through Eastbrook village; and, thirdly, the widening of Harbour Road, Barry.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Road Accidents

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will state the percentage increase or decrease in road fatalities per 1,000 licensed vehicles comparing 1938 with 1960.

Mr. Hay: Between 1938 and 1960 there was a decrease of 64 per cent.

Sir Richard Pilkington: While there are still far too many acidents, does not the figure show that there has been a really substantial improvement in road behaviour?

Mr. Hay: The figure must be treated with some reserve, not only because there are still far too many accidents, as my hon. Friend points out, but because I am advised that a simple comparison of the kind asked for in the Question does not reflect a number of points which are somewhat too lengthy and detailed to go into now. But the figure shows that there has been a fall.

Headlights

Mr. E. Taylor: asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation to make the use of dipped headlights compulsory on a moving vehicle after lighting-up time.

Mr. Marples: The power to do this is included in the Road Traffic Bill which was published today. If and when Parliament approves the Bill, the precise use of the power will need more study.

Mr. Taylor: While I thank my right hon. Friend for going part of the way, he could, in my view, have gone much further. Is he aware that at least two coroners—one in Bolton and one in Coventry—have criticised the use of sidelights only in two instances where fatal accidents occurred? Should not some legislation be introduced? If it saved only one life, it would be of great benefit.

Mr. Marples: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. At the moment there is no statutory requirement that vehicles should be fitted even with headlamps. We are proposing to ask Parliament to give us that power in the Road Traffic Bill, and I can assure my hon. Friend that as soon as Parliament gives us the power we shall act upon it.

Vehicle Tests

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that motor cars which are being assembled, the major portion of which are parts taken from motor cars made more than ten years ago, are not subject to the test for vehicles of over ten years of age; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that such assembled cars are fit for the road.

Mr. Hay: We are aware of the situation to which the hon. Member refers, though not all cars assembled in this way are outside the scope of the testing scheme.
This is a very difficult problem, but we are exploring the possibility of bringing such vehicles within the ambit of the scheme.

Sir B. Janner: In view of the serious nature of the position, will the Minister assure the House that in this type of case, where parts are greater than the whole, he will see to it that those parts are properly examined when they are used in a car? Does not the Minister regard this as an extremely serious and important matter and a transgression against what he intends doing with regard to old cars?

Mr. Hay: On the face of it I agree that it looks serious, but I am advised that it is not as serious as it seems for the reason that the majority of these cars about which we are talking are constructed by amateurs on a do-it-yourself basis, and usually the amount of expertise and technical knowledge they bring to the making of these cars is greater than that of some of the commercial manufacturers. Moreover, I think that we have to bear in mind that the reduction by stages of the age limit of vehicles subject to test will bring these vehicles within the ambit of the scheme in due course.

Limitometer

Mr. Grey: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the inquiries his vehicle certifying officer has made concerning the use of the limitometer.

Mr. Hay: The hon. Member will by now have received the letter which I wrote to him on 2nd March on this


subject. As I then said, in our view, the adoption of the limitometer or any similar device designed to indicate a vehicle's speed to other road users would not be advantageous from either the road safety or the enforcement point of view.

Mr. Grey: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for fulfilling the promise he made some time ago to have this gadget inspected. In future, will he see that any kind of safety device which comes to his notice is inspected before he makes up his mind, because in the case to which I referred the Department had decided not to accept the idea before inspecting the gadget? When the certifying officer went to inspect it, his mind was biased. Will the Parliamentary Secretary therefore ensure that other ideas which are submitted will be inspected before being rejected?

Mr. Hay: We receive details week by by week and month by month of a vast number of devices which are believed by those who put them forward to have a road safety value. I cannot guarantee that we will comprehensively investigate each one, because many are repetitions of earlier ideas, but we will certainly neglect no opportunity to improve road safety where we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Uneconomic Services

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Minister of Transport what progress Her Majesty's Government have made in their consideration of the closing of uneconomic railway services; and what consideration is being given to the replacement of branch railway lines by alternative means of transport.

Mr. Marples: I have nothing to add at present to the Answer which I gave the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) on 15th March.

Mr. Browne: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the special problems of the remoter districts are given due consideration? Will he consider instructing licensing authorities, where necessary, to be lenient when dealing with applications by small operators of passenger vehicles?

Mr. Marples: This point is covered by the existing Statutes. The transport users' consultative committee takes account of alternative facilities when it considers proposals for closures.

Marylebone-Sheffield Line

Mr. Darling: asked the Minister of Transport if he will refer to the appropriate transport users' consultative committee the proposal to close stations and depots on the former Great Central line between Marylebone and Sheffield, and the proposal to curtail present services of freight and passenger trains on this route.

Mr. Hay: The railway regions concerned will, I understand, in due course submit proposals to the transport users' consultative committees of the areas affected.

Mr. Darling: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that what is happening now on this line is that the Transport Commission, instead of putting forward an overall plan to the Central Consultative Committee, is putting forward detailed plans to each local committee and is proceeding with closures before receiving the views of the local committees, even though no alternative transport is provided? In those circumstances, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that we need an overall plan to go to the Central Consultative Committee rather than to proceed in this piecemeal fashion?

Mr. Hay: No, Sir. As I understand the situation, the regions have not yet put forward their proposals to the area committees. Until they do that—and that is the normal practice in these cases—I am afraid that neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any standing in the matter.

Mr. Darling: Why have proposals on this line been put forward to the staff consultative council before any proposal has been made?

Mr. Hay: Because I understand that that is the normal practice. The men are usually consulted through the national conciliation and discussion machinery before the various projects are put forward. That is an entirely different matter from putting forward proposals for the closure of a line or


the withdrawal of a service to various area transport users' committees.

Mr. Darling: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING

Bill to enable the Minister of Transport to make advances to Cunard White Star Limited in connection with the construction of a large vessel for the North Atlantic shipping trade, and to enter into agreements with them concerning insurance risks connected with such a vessel, presented by Mr. Ernest Marples; supported by Mr. Reginald Maudling, Mr. Anthony Barber, and Mr. John Hay; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

SEASONAL WORKERS

Mr. Percy Browne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision to enable seasonal workers to draw unemployment benefit; and for purposes connected therewith.
The main object of my proposed Bill is to amend the National Insurance (Seasonal Workers) Regulations, 1950, which deal with the payment of unemployment benefit. It may well seem that the proposed amendments are trivial, but I submit that there is a point of principle at issue and I hope that the Bill will commend itself to the House—[Interruption.]—if I can get a hearing.
Paragraph 2 (2) of the Regulations says, in effect, that a seasonal worker must have had "a substantial amount of employment" during his off-season to qualify for benefit and sub-paragraph (2, d) states that a substantial amount of employment means
… employment which is equal in duration to not less than one-fourth … of the current off-season.
The National Insurance Advisory Council, in order to safeguard the position of employed people, concluded that
… a worker who had accepted or chosen local conditions which precluded a reasonable

prospect of a substantial amount of … employment in his off-season could not be regarded as in the field of employment during that period. …
I completely disagree with this conclusion. I believe that very few people choose to live in these local conditions. I think that it is a case of there being no alternative for most of them. The conditions are thrust upon them and, therefore, they should not be penalised.
In any case, the ordinary unemployment benefit Regulations enable the benefit to be withheld from persons who refuse to take a job. Furthermore, to receive the benefit the person must be registered for employment and must be prepared to accept employment, and it is surely not that person's fault if the work is not available. The specific Regulations which I am trying to amend are difficult and expensive to operate. They require a three-year average, and during the past three years, taking an average, only 4,200 people per annum have been affected by the regulations over the whole country.
That is the point of principle. There will be a further section of the Bill to enable those who are employed part-time by school meals services and who receive a small retainer during the school holiday period to draw benefit as well. The retainer is paid for the convenience of the school, but at present it debars a person from drawing unemployment benefit. I seek to remedy this position in cases where there is no other work available. The Bill is not wide in scope and I hope that it will commend itself to hon. Members and that the House will give leave to bring it in.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. P. Browne, Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan, Mr. Mathew, Mr. Tiley, Mr. Scott-Hopkins, Mr. Prior, and Mr. Mawby.

SEASONAL WORKERS

Bill to make further provision to enable seasonal workers to draw unemployment benefit; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 28th April, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

MR. ANTHONY NEIL WEDGWOOD BENN (COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES REPORT)

Mr. C. Pannell: I gave you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I wanted to raise a matter with you today. I do not ask for any Ruling now, but I asked you to consider the point bearing in mind that the matter of the Committee of Privileges and its Report on Mr. Wedgwood Benn may shortly be before the House.
I assume that there must be some question about this, otherwise the House would not have referred the matter to the Committee of Privileges. I assume from that that the Report must be accepted by the House itself. I want to inquire what are the rights of Mr. Benn if and when the House considers that Report. I do not know whether he is in the same category as Mr. MacManaway, who addressed the House, prior to withdrawing, on his case. His is the case that I can remember in my time.
I do not think that Mr. Benn could address the House in that way, but I want to know whether he could speak from the Bar of the House and, assuming that he could, whether it would be by your leave, Mr. Speaker, by leave of the House, or by summons or Resolution of the House.
I would ask you to look at the precedent of 23rd June, 1880, when the House resolved:
That Mr. Bradlaugh be now heard at the Bar.
His case, of course, had been referred to a Select Committee. It was brought back and the House resolved that he could be heard in his own case at the Bar.
I would ask you to bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that this is a rare occasion and that everyone in the House, irrespective of party, would wish to do justice to a Member who served the House for so many years, and would wish that there should be no procedural snags in seeing that one whom some of us consider to be an hon. Member gets his rights. I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in your own good time.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for allowing me to know about this. I will rule on it tomorrow, unless it turns out to be an inconvenient time. The hon. Member ought not to have been allowed to address me at this moment, but the reason why I expected that the House would allow me to receive his communication now was that it was entirely my fault that I had forgotten about it in a certain moment of entertainment during the presentation of a Bill.

Orders of the Day — SIERRA LEONE INDEPENDENCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
It is a great pleasure for me to have the privilege this afternoon of moving the Second Reading of a Bill that will bring independence to one of the territories for which we have for a very long time been responsible, indeed, our oldest Colony in West Africa, for we have been in Sierra Leone since 1787. No doubt hon. Members have studied the Report of the Constitutional Conference and will remember that I told the Conference
that it was of the greatest importance that the country, before it became independent, should have shown clearly that she had the capacity to cope successfully with the problems of full self-government".
For this reason, I was satisfied
that it would be wise to allow a period of a year
to elapse
after the Conference".
The Conference agreed to that and 27th April, 1961, was put forward as the date for the attainment of full independence by Sierra Leone.
During the interval since the London Conference the interim changes in the Constitution then agreed have been brought into effect. So the Ministers have had considerable experience of the problems that they will have to face for themselves once their country becomes independent. Last November, the House of Representatives in Sierra Leone passed a Resolution asking us in the United Kingdom to introduce the necessary legislation to enable Sierra Leone to become fully independent from the date I have mentioned. They asked us, also, to

support, with other members of the Commonwealth, Sierra Leone's desire to be admitted to the Commonwealth when she had obtained independence. As the House will know, the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, during their recent meeting in London, expressed their willingness so to welcome it.
I wish to refer to two matters which have been mentioned to me by hon. Members on both sides of this House. The first is the suggestion that the Sierra Leone Constitution should have been available to the House before the Bill was taken. The second was that the Bill is being taken at somewhat short notice. Although the second matter is valid, and I shall refer to it, the first point is based on misapprehension, because drafts of constitutional Orders in Council are not published before they are submitted to Her Majesty. The procedure we are following now is exactly the same as the one we followed for Nigeria, although, for Nigeria, the drafting of the Constitution was very much more complicated.
This does not mean that the substance of the Constitution is in any way unknown, because the substance of the Constitution in so far as it is new and does not carry forward the existing Constitution is laid down in the White Paper to which I have referred and the Order in Council does no more than clothe that in legal form. It will be published early in April. I think that it was a valid point made at Question Time by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) that publicity should be given to these matters in Sierra Leone. A draft Order in Council, comprehensive more to lawyers perhaps than ordinary people, is not a very suitable medium for that and the Governor is arranging to publish locally descriptive matter relating to the new sections, in particular, of the Constitution and to such matters as citizenship and fundamental rights.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the members of the Legislative Council in Sierra Leone have had copies of the Constitution?

Mr. Macleod: I think that they have. I should like to check that particular point. There are two legal advisers and draftsmen from my Department in Sierra


Leone at the moment. I will check on that point and see whether I can answer it before the end of the debate.
The second point, that we are taking the Bill at short notice, is true. I apologise to the House for that, but it is due to a combination of circumstances which could scarcely be avoided. It was not possible to draft the Bill in final form for presentation to Parliament until we knew for certain whether Sierra Leone would be within the Commonwealth, although one always hoped, and, indeed, assumed, that that would be so. We therefore had to wait for the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference before I could publish this Bill.
Moreover, the first constitutional matter which came before that Conference, the question of South Africa, which we are to debate later today, took much longer to discuss than we had expected. In consequence, the Sierra Leone decision was correspondingly delayed. That was why it was not possible to give any longer notice of the Bill than has been given. It was laid before the House on the same day as the Commonwealth Prime Ministers took their decision and we were able to keep to the timetable for independence on the 27th of next month.
The population and area of Sierra Leone will make it one of the smaller members of the Commonwealth, but that in itself is no bar to a country holding its independence with dignity and ability and playing a substantial part on the stage of the world. Nor is it a particularly rich country, although, as the Report I have quoted shows, we have been able to make substantial provision for financial assistance in the early stages. As those hon. Members who have been there will know, its economy is mainly agricultural, but it has, in addition, rich deposits of diamonds and iron ore, and bauxite has recently been discovered in substantial quantities. I think that there is there a sufficient economic basis for an independent future. Certainly, Sierra Leone is much better off than many other countries which have recently come to their independence.
The Colonial Development Corporation and the C.D.F.C. are assisting in a major work of construction of a dam

to provide for the water supply of Freetown and that work will, of course, go on. In addition, we have promised to give Sierra Leone technical assistance in the same way as we promised it to Nigeria. The House will recall the announcement of H.M.O.C.S. That has been offered to Sierra Leone and I hope that it will prove the means of assisting the country to obtain the services of overseas staff which it needs. I do not quote any of these things which I have touched on briefly to draw attention to our own generosity or to detract in any way from the splendid efforts Sierra Leone herself is making, but simply to show that our friendship does not consist only of expressions of good will.
The Constitution is not set out in the Bill. This Bill confers independence and for the future removes from this House its special obligations in relation to legislation. The Constitution itself will be set out in the Order in Council. In that there will be, in particular—I mention this because there has been some comment recently—provisions in relation to fundamental rights and these will be entrenched in the Constitution. By entrenching them it means that the Constitution cannot just be amended by the Government, the House of Representatives.
Any alteration of an entrenched provision, as set out in paragraph 20 of the White Paper, requires, first, that the amendment would have to be carried by a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives, then there would have to be a General Election and, after that, the amendment would again have to be carried by a two-thirds majority in the new House. So I think that it is clear that these matters, of which fundamental rights are one of the most important, are deeply entrenched in the Constitution itself.
There has also been a considerable campaign in Sierra Leone on the question of holding a General Election before independence. The position is that when the delegates came to London they represented a number of different political parties, but they then agreed to form a united front and, later, a coalition Government, but, of the 26 representatives in London, 25 agreed that there need not be a General Election before independence, the twenty-sixth dissenting from that view.
I make it clear that the life of the House of Representatives will expire in 1962 and that there will have to be a General Election then, or before then, in any event. Although it is right to keep to the decision reached at the Conference, I must make it plain that I am assured that the Government firmly intend to hold elections, as provided in the Constitution, after independence.
At the Conference we also agreed that it would be to the mutual benefit of the two countries to enter into an agreement on defence matters, but we thought it equally right to leave that matter over, and not even to negotiate about it, until Sierra Leone became independent, so that we could then negotiate that agreement as two equal partners, as we will be after the 27th day of next month.
I need not make any particular comments about the Bill itself, which is very much in common form. Clause 1 provides for the attainment of independence and contains what I have described as the Statute of Westminster powers. It says explicitly in subsection (2) that any Act of this Parliament passed on or after the appointed day shall not extend to Sierra Leone and the Government in the United Kingdom shall thereafter have no responsibility for the government of Sierra Leone. Following the Nigerian system, that is absolutely clear.
Clause 2 is the citizenship Clause, and provides both for a transitional period and for the period after Sierra Leone has passed her own citizenship law. The whole of the rest of the Bill is entirely common form and the Schedules, with the obvious and necessary changes, are similar to those who have frequently been before the House. We have agreed with Sierra Leone Ministers that in so far as the Bill will be amendable in Sierra Leone, when it becomes an Act, amendments can be made only by the procedures which I have described for amending the entrenched provisions of the Constitution.
This afternoon's short debate is proof again of the coming to completion of the policies in which we have now been engaged for a long time and of which we are increasingly seeing the fruits. I pay warm tribute to all those who have contributed to this progress in Sierra Leone—to the Governor, Sir Maurice

Dorman, and Her Majesty's Overseas Service, past and present. It is a great tribute to the Governor and to this country that his name has been put forward as the first Governor-General when Sierra Leone becomes a monarchy under the Crown. But whatever individual tributes one wishes to pay, the real tribute is to the people of the country itself, who are now coming forward to independence, and who, I am sure, will shoulder with courage and responsibility the burdens of nationhood.
There is one personal note which I should like to sound. I am sure that we are all delighted that Her Majesty should have invited the Duke of Kent to represent her at the independence celebrations, and if I wish him the same success as his sister achieved in Nigeria I can put it no higher. She had a tremendous time and I am certain that the Duke of Kent will be equally welcome and equally successful in Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone, incidentally, is very much looking forward to Her Majesty's own visit later this year.
The closing words of the Conference Report read as follows:
The Conference reaffirmed the long tradidition of friendship between Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom, and the representatives of both made it clear that it was the intention that their co-operation and friendship should continue.
It is in that spirit that I commend the Bill to the House and in that spirit that we shall look forward to the future of our relationship with an independent Sierra Leone.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I warmly welcome the Bill. We are delighted that the third former British territory in West Africa is to become independent. We are all the more delighted that the recent Prime Ministers' Conference should have welcomed Sierra Leone as a full member of the Commonwealth. She has decided of her own free will to become a monarchy and we in the United Kingdom, naturally, cannot help but be pleased about that. I join with the Colonial Secretary in all that he said in wishing the Duke of Kent a very pleasant and enjoyable time when he visits Sierra Leone. I am sure that he will have a right royal welcome.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to questions which we had put from this side of the House about the delay in presenting the Bill. We were surprised not to have had it before, but I fully accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of that delay. I agree that the Bill is in common form and, therefore, does not require detailed consideration after we have discussed it this afternoon.
I was aware that there were difficulties about publishing an Order in Council before it was made, but, none the less, I was anxious to draw attention by the questions I put, to the desirability of making known to the people of Sierra Leone exactly what was in their Constitution.
In December, I had the honour to lead a very small delegation to Sierra Leone I was joined by the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren). I hasten to add, lest the House be anxious about it, that I had no difficulty about disciplining my followers on that occasion. They were very well behaved. All of us on that delegation have vivid memories of the beauty of the country and the variety of its scenery and the friendliness of its people.
Wherever we went we were received most cordially, by Sir Milton Margai and his Ministers, by the trade union leaders, by members of co-operative societies, by ordinary people, by important people and by less important people all over Sierra Leone. We were much impressed by the closeness of the connection which the people of Sierra Leone feel with this country, not merely in Freetown, which has been more closely associated with Great Britain over many years than has the Protectorate, but in the Protectorate, also.
With that, however, there was undeniably some feeling of apprehension and as we went around some people asked, "Why are you leaving us?". That was how they expressed it to us. It seemed as though many persons in a variety of occupations and in different places had a feeling of uneasiness. That did not exist among the Ministers, of course. It did not exist among the chiefs. Those people are powerful and are self-

confident in their new mission. I do not for a moment suggest that they are not, but they are powerful and will be more powerful and they may have good reason not to feel any misgiving.
Nevertheless, we felt that there was a feeling of doubt, possibly because it was only three years between the establishment of a Ministerial system and the giving of full independence. Perhaps the people did not expect it to come quite so soon. Readers' correspondence in the newspapers showed that there was, if not misapprehension, at any rate a good deal of misunderstanding about what independence involved.
Some of this arises because the people have a trust in many of those who have been in charge of their affairs while the Protectorate remained a Protectorate and Freetown remained a Colony. I hope that one good result will be that the feeling of doubt as to whether they are fully ready for independence will translate itself into strong requests to many experienced and skilled administrators and experts to stay on. I hope that the results of the negotiations which we provided for in a recent Measure will prove to be successful. It is clear that large numbers of those people are well liked and trusted. I hope that they will feel that they can stay, when they are asked to do so, to help this small country in its further passage towards being a strong and viable economy.
It is well known that the history of the country has not always been peaceful. In the past, there has been strife between the Protectorate and Freetown. There has been rivalry between various tribes, particularly between the Mende and the Temene. There may be fear in the minds of some people that this will emerge again. I suppose that the leaders of the All Peoples' Congress, to whose correspondence with some of us the right hon. Gentleman referred, had these various stresses and strains in mind when they put forward their demand for elections before independence.
We took pains to see the representatives of the All Peoples' Congress. We were the guests of the Government, and we had many and frequent contacts with the Prime Minister, with Ministers and other persons in authority, including


many chieftains. We thought it right and proper that, since representations were being made to us, we should see Mr. Wallace Johnson, who is, in any case, a member of the Legislature, Mr. Stevens and others concerned in the All Peoples' Congress. We gave as fair a hearing as we could to what they had to say, but none of us was convinced of the full case that they put forward.
After all, the Conference in London agreed that it was unnecessary to have elections before independence, and as the right hon. Gentleman said, there was a very large representation at the Conference of people who had been elected by the people, although there were some others. It was decided at the Conference in London that there should be universal suffrage at the next election. It will inevitably take time to register the women voters who will become the electorate.
As far as we could see, there is no real issue to be decided at the moment, because everybody is in favour of independence, even though some of the simple people are not quite sure exactly what it will mean. We were not, and could not be, convinced by the statement that it was Sir Milton Margai's intention never to have elections again and to establish a one-party State. Now that Sir Milton has recommended to Her Majesty that Sir Maurice Dorman be the Governor-General, it is perfectly clear that he could never have had any such project in his mind, otherwise he would not have asked such a distinguished former Governor and so devoted an adherent of the parliamentary democratic system which we have in this country to become the Governor-General.
I extend my hearty congratulations to Sir Maurice and offer him every good wish in his future task. He has piloted Sierra Leone very skilfully towards this stage of independence. I am sure that he will give very wise advice in future when he is asked to do so. Moreover, Sierra Leone has a stout guardian of democratic liberties in Mr. Lightfoot Boston, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who is an eminent constitutional lawyer and a great believer in the principles of British common law.
Further, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, an elaborate Bill of Human

Rights will be written into the Constitution. It was agreed in detail at the London Conference. I am still convinced that it would have been wise to publicise this more than has been done. People just did not know about it and how thorough, elaborate, detailed and firm it is. Although I was not convinced by the story that there would be no elections after independence, I want to say how much I welcome the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has been authorised to make this afternoon, namely, that Sir Milton Margai has every intention of having elections within the due time.
The human rights section of the proposed new Constitution says this on page 17 of the Report of the Conference:
Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with"—
so and so—
shall be brought properly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.
There are some who have been imprisoned recently. I take it that the statement we heard today clearly means that those who have offended will be brought to trial quickly if that has not already been done. In the rejoicings and celebrations of independence perhaps those who may not have committed any very serious offence may find that they are released.
While we were in Sierra Leone we had a very interesting discussion in which the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central and I took part with some distinguished representatives of public life in Sierra Leone, one of them being Mr. Stevens, who has written so many letters to many of us since we returned. The discussion was about the possibilities of maintaining democratic government in emerging African territories. That is a very live issue in Africa these days, because there are examples in Africa, as we all know, of states where the one-party system prevails and where Parliamentary democracy as we know it does not exist.
The general conclusion of the very active debate which we had was that the forms of democracy might differ and


that, no doubt as the result of traditional variations, the exact constitution might not be the same everywhere in Africa, but we all felt that it was certainly highly desirable and perhaps absolutely necessary to have within a successful democracy a lively opposition.
Mr. Stevens took part in the debate. I am sure that there are legitimate differences of opinion among the people of Sierra Leone about the present Government, their policies, and their attitude to certain institutions of a tribal character. If there are those differences, that provides an opportunity to Mr. Stevens and Mr. Wallace Johnson and other people engaged in opposition to make themselves into an effective Parliamentary Opposition. I hope that they will now devote themselves to organising an opposition, if they wish to do so, on legal and democratic lines and look forward to getting elected to Parliament when the elections take place.
The Secretary of State rightly said at the Constitutional Conference, and repeated today, that Sierra Leone is not a rich country. There has been a recent large increase in its national income because of an increase in the output of minerals. Nevertheless, that total increase in wealth, though large in proportion, is not large in absolute amount, and the known supplies of diamonds and iron ore will not last indefinitely, to put it no higher than that. There are limits to the present known resources.
Bauxite has recently been discovered, but bauxite is being discovered in many places just now, in Africa as well as elsewhere. The main wealth of the country lies in its land and its ability to produce palm oil, and to grow rice, cocoa, cassava, piassava, cola nuts and, later perhaps, bananas. I believe that they are experimenting very successfully with the banana crop.
But the land of Sierra Leone, which is the main source of its wealth, has been injured much in the past by erosion, as I am sure is known by all who have been there. The country is not to be compared in wealth with Nigeria not to speak of Ghana, which is perhaps the richest country in agriculture and forestry in Africa. Development is badly needed, as elsewhere in such countries, to sustain existing levels of wealth and to provide for an increase in population

as well as to increase the wealth per head. Funds are needed to be put into the hands of a people who, as far as we can judge, are very willing to help themselves.
I found the co-operative movement in Sierra Leone most inspiring. It has expanded rapidly in recent years. It has 400 societies, with 24,000 members and a staff of 135, and it has been remarkably successful in arousing the interest of women which, as all hon. Members who know Africa will appreciate, is a very important factor.
I do not think that one can exaggerate the potential importance of this movement in improving agriculture, in developing a sense of community and in providing a training ground for democracy; for democracy is by no means only a process of electing members of a Legislature: it must be practised in daily life to become deeply rooted in any nation. The same applies to the trade unions. The mineworkers' union, whose leaders we met and many of whose members we met, too, seemed to us to be in good shape. Its secretary, I understand, is at present at Ruskin College, Oxford, following a course of training for his important duties.
This union and other unions need our help, because they, too, are a training ground for democracy. These institutions can be as African in character as in make-up. No doubt they will develop some forms of association or practice which are different from those of trade unions elsewhere, but upon these foundations of a keen and eager people, if only we can help them with adequate supplies of investment capital, a flourishing nation can be built.
Sir Milton Margai loves the life and culture of the villages, I know; he goes out and serves his people with his own hands. As he told me with pride and evident satisfaction, he often delivers babies in the bush with his own hands, for he is a gynaecologist, trained in Newcastle.
I am sure that he appreciates and values a thriving life on the land, but much needs to be done in a country of only 2½ million if it is to become strong and able to bear comparison with Guinea. This is very important indeed As hon. Members know very well, the French have done a great deal in


developing territories which were formerly under their control. As figures published recently by O.E.C.D. show, they have provided a larger amount of aid to their former colonies than we have provided to ours.
Guinea has benefited from this and is now receiving aid from Czechoslovakia. I should like to see Sierra Leone do at least as well, to be as prosperous as Guinea and to show a good example, under a fully democratic system, of what can be done in an African country. But much needs to be done in the provision of health, communications, housing, fisheries, agriculture and education.
The primary school enrolment in the whole of Sierra Leone was 34,000 in 1950. It had risen to 69,000 in 1958, but much of that progress and improvement had taken place in Freetown, which already had substantial educational advantages. The best calculation which I could make—it may be inaccurate and, if so, I should like it corrected—was that the chance of a child in the Protectorate getting primary education is still only one in ten. The Fourah Bay College, the first college of higher education in West Africa, after all these years has little over 300 students, and half of those are from Nigeria. It is a far less impressive undertaking now than Ibadan, not to speak of the enormous college of technology at Kumasi and the University of Ghana itself.
The Secretary of State has promised £7½ million over the next three or four years in loans and grants. He spoke about this today and gave his reasons for thinking that it was adequate. I hope that he will think again and that, at any rate, he will agree to review this proposition at the end of a year or eighteen months to see whether the funds then provided promise reasonably to yield satisfactory fruit and whether they could be increased.
The major feeling with which I came back from Sierra Leone was that the needs for development are urgent, that the capacity of the population is there, that the willingness of the population to co-operate is rapidly increasing, that independence should give all this a fillip and that we ought to do more. I should like to see a special grant right away

for the eradication of malaria. Her Majesty's Government refused to give a grant to the World Health Organisation for its malaria eradication campaign because they say that other countries are not paying their whack. That may be true. I do not dispute it. But why not give to Sierra Leone, as a birthday gift, a little extra, a special grant? It seems a shame that malaria should still be so widely prevalent in that country when it has been practically eliminated in British Guiana, which is a country not dissimilar in make-up.
I hope that there will be early provision of adequate funds for a co-operative bank. The co-operative societies are spreading and their growing numbers are becoming very enthusiastic, but they will not be able to carry on their productive functions unless they can obtain credit for the farmers who belong to them. They are not now getting sufficient credit. I should like to see consideration of a special grant for a co-operative bank.
I should like to see this country build a number—I do not say too many, because the teachers might not be available—of primary schools, label them independence primary schools, and put on the front of them, on a notice, "A gift to independent Sierra Leone from the independent British people".
In Sierra Leone, they have had a very long connection with this country. I think that they value it highly. Let the message go from the House this afternoon that we, too, value it highly, that we are proud of it, that we want to strengthen it and that we want it to last through the years. We wish them well. Let us help them to get off to a good start.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pannell: In common with the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), I regret the delay in bringing this Bill before the House. Although I recognise the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend, I feel that it derogates from the authority of Parliament that in this matter we must receive the assent of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers before we can, in our own discretion, grant independence to a Colony.
Even more do I regret the haste with which the Bill is being passed through


all its stages. A Colony, with which we have had a connection for over 200 years, is being, in a sense, disposed of in a few hours. Whereas, yesterday, we discussed for the whole day a matter of transitory and trivial importance—the salary of one man—today we are disposing of the destiny of 2 million people in less than half that time.
I must confess that, contrary to many hon. Members, I do not greet this Bill with any enthusiasm, but I fully recognise the compelling reasons which render it inevitable. I agree that it is far better to yield gracefully now than to submit later after having put up an opposition which might have caused great resentment, and the loss of the good will of the people of Sierra Leone. Like the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, I also had the honour of leading an all-party delegation to Sierra Leone. That was in 1958. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I was impressed by the warmth and friendliness of the people. I was, however, perturbed by certain aspects of Sierra Leone's economy and the fact that its revenue was very small.
The income per head of population was not more than £20, and education was only in its early stages. I estimated that only one child in six had any prospect of any kind of education.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: Will the hon. Gentleman say whose fault that was? Could not education have been started years ago?

Mr. Pannell: I hope to make some reference to that later.
I felt, apart from the reasons for it, that was a rather insecure basis for independence. But, since my visit, a great deal has happened in Africa. So many countries have gained their independence, countries with less financial resources and smaller populations than Sierra Leone, and with less ability to control their own affairs. In that comparison Sierra Leone certainly does not suffer, and it would be quite impossible to withhold from the people of Sierra Leone the independence for which their democratically elected legislature has asked. So I join with other hon. Members, not so much welcoming the independence of Sierra Leone, but certainly in wishing her the best of good fortune

and the greatest possible prosperity in the future.
There has been a very long association indeed between Sierra Leone and this country. Sierra Leone differs from any other country of Africa to which we have granted independence in that it is not a Colony in the pejorative sense. As hon. Members well know, it was a settlement of freed men towards the end of the eighteenth century. It was regarded as a great experiment of what Africans could do. Although perhaps not all the hopes have been entirely fulfilled, much has been achieved in the intervening period; and I think that the economy and progress of Sierra Leone compares very favourably with that of its neighbour, Liberia, where a similar settlement was made sixty or seventy years later in the middle of the nineteenth century.
Although we may criticise our Government for not having done everything they should, particularly in the matter of education, we must recognise that they have done quite a lot. It was only after the end of the last war—I think that perhaps all parties are responsible for this—that there was a recognition that this country should give some positive aid to the Colonies. Up to that date all we had done was to marshal the resources of the countries. The resources of Sierra Leone were not as great as those of Nigeria, and in relation to its population they were very much less than the resources of the Gold Coast, or Ghana as it is now called. Therefore, the progress made was less significant than in those other two territories.
A great deal that we had done has not been effective. While I was in Sierra Leone I visited several agricultural stations. They were models of efficiency and certainly showed the African how to cultivate his crops in a much better manner than he is doing by the present method of shifting cultivation. But very little use was made of these stations by the African. He was unwilling to abandon his traditional methods of agriculture, and side-by-side with the rich corn on an agricultural station one could see, on the other side of the road, the poor sparse crop of corn produced by the African.
I think that independence could have a beneficial effect in such matters. The British guided and controlled, but they


exercised no compulsion and I was much influenced by, and interested in, the fact that when Ghana gained her independence the independent Government were able to stamp out swollen shoot in the cocoa crop, which was threatening that industry, in a manner in which the British had never been able to do.
I do not know whether an independent Government enlists greater support from the people or is able to introduce harsher methods, but at any rate results were rapidly achieved. In that respect, we failed. The same thing may occur in Sierra Leone. The methods of agriculture recognised as beneficent may be introduced by an independent Government, perhaps by a measure of compulsion or because of the enthusiasm of the people for an independent Government which they would fail to exhibit towards a colonial régime.
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, spoke of the mineral resources of Sierra Leone. They are impressive, but, of course, they do not have any great effect on the income of the people, because they affect a relatively small number. They may raise the income per head of the population by £5. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the chief basis of the economy is agriculture, and it is only through an advance in that respect that the standard of living of the people will be substantially raised.
I hope, I confidently believe, that when Sierra Leone attains independence, it will respect the arrangements made with private companies for the development of iron ore and diamonds. A point which is worthy of mention is that, of roughly £15 million worth of diamonds produced each year, one-third is produced by the concessionary company which pays millions of pounds in taxation each year into the revenue of Sierra Leone. The other two-thirds is produced by private diggers. When I visited the Colony there were 80,000 of them.
The revenue accruing to the Government from them is insignificant, as it is founded on export duty. The limited company has to pay over a high proportion of its profits by way of taxation. That is something which I think an

independent Sierra Leone might well look at. It might be able to use these very valuable resources in a less wasteful manner than by way of private diggings, and also bring much more into the coffers of the State than has been put there hitherto.
In conclusion, I should like to say to hon. Members that a very great deal of the smoothness of the operations for independence is due to Premier Sir Milton Margai and to the Governor, Sir Maurice Dorman. I found Sir Milton Margai a very wise old gentleman who had a remarkable restraining influence on the wild elements in the country; a man who earned our respect and deserved our respect.
Sir Maurice Dorman has undertaken his difficult task of leading the country towards independence with great ability. I can imagine no man who would so enlist not only the confidence of his Ministers, but also their affection. I am very pleased indeed that he will be the first representative of Her Majesty after independence has been attained.
I wish the newly independent State of Sierra Leone a prosperous future in co-operation with this country and with other members of our independent Commonwealth.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: We are today debating the loss of a member of the Commonwealth. At the same time, we are welcoming, as a member of the Commonwealth, one of our Colonies which we feel worthy of the status of independence. All of us, I think, would wish the Colony to thrive, to prosper, and that it should not be founded on the racial principles which have brought about the loss from the Commonwealth of the Union of South Africa.
I welcome the Bill because of my own long-standing friendship with many of the people of Sierra Leone. It was nearly twenty years ago that, in company with Walter Elliot and Sir Julian Huxley, I was asked to investigate some of the social, economic and educational problems of the territory. Later, when I had the privilege of presiding over the Colonial Office, I discussed with Sir Hubert Stevenson and the then Governor, Sir Beresford Stooke, the future political development of Sierra Leone.


Neither I, nor, I am certain, none of those ex-Governors ever thought that within such a short time Sierra Leone, of its own will, would be independent and the settlement or Colony working in reasonable harmony with the Protectorate.
I should like to pay tribute to the initial work done by Sir Beresford Stooke when he was Governor, and to add that I myself am happy that I had something to do with the pioneer work which brought about the early constitution changes.
The granting of the status of independence is something of a bold experiment. We should recognise that this territory, over the years, has had to contend with very special difficulties. Our thoughts go back, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) reminded us, to the settlement established in a somewhat barbaric country—when an effort was made to found a genuine Colony or settlement for free men from the United States. There has, of course, always been some profound division between the Colony and the Protectorate. That circumstance has been a very real obstacle in constitutional development.
The Protectorate itself was extremely backward, and was, for a very long period of years, mostly neglected. Its resources were poor, which made it difficult to build up any genuine social and economic life, and, in the main, it was regarded by interests in this country as a territory to be exploited for its iron ore, its diamonds, and possibly for a few agricultural crops.
One can quite understand that today there is a degree of uneasiness as to the wisdom of this Bill, an uneasiness which arises from the doubts which exist as to the alleged political immaturity of the people and their limited political experience. Also because of the somewhat limited basis for their economic life. Yet the people are demanding, with the Colony now reconciled to the Protectorate, and of their own will, independent status.
I should like, as did the hon. Member for Kirkdale, to pay tribute to Sir Milton Margai. I had the privilege of meeting Sir Milton nearly twenty years ago in a very obscure corner of Sierra Leone. I was introduced to him, curiously enough,

by Mr. Wallace Johnson, who, at this moment, is going through the courts, as he was then. Sir Milton was doing a remarkable piece of medical and social work in the remote corner of Bonthe in Sierra Leone. He was said to be, at that time, the one outstanding intellectual which the Protectorate had produced.
By Sir Milton's skill in handling experiments in preventive medicine, in dealing with midwifery and maternity, and in tackling some of the difficult problems of initiation ceremonies, he showed himself to be a remarkable and unusual person. Ever since, I have retained a close friendship with him and admired generally the political work which he has attempted to do. He came into politics not because of any inner urge on his part but because the people of the Protectorate claimed his services, so that in the end he felt obliged to give them.
I think that it should be remembered, when people talk of the immaturity of Sierra Leone, that, after all, Freetown, over a very long period, has been a great centre of political discussion and agitation. I recall some of those who acted as leaders of the people there, who tried to give wise guidance. There was the late Mayor of Freetown, Dr. Taylor-Cummings, who served with distinction on the Commission on Higher Education in West Africa. There was Dr. Bright, also, and even Wallace Johnson, in his turn, contributed something to political discussion and the political scepticism which is so necessary in the developing political life of a country.
Let us not forget, also, the great work and influence of Fourah Bay College and the pride which the people of Sierra Leone entertain for that college. We owe a debt to Durham University for standing in the shadows over a long period of time and helping the college along, in building up its standards. The college has trained Africans and done much for the general life and indeed. in inspiring education all along the West Coast. We should remember, that some of those who have taken an active part in leadership in West Africa, with moderation and with wisdom, in Nigeria, in Ghana, received their training in Fourah Bay College. One can hope that the college will go on to full university status and that, with the advice


which has so frequently been given to it, particularly of late by Mr. Fulton and Dr. Daish, it will before long attain that goal.
I feel obliged to voice several doubts which come with independence. The first relates to the old division existing between the Colony and the Protectorate. It is perfectly true that there has over the years been an intertwining of interests and of personnel and an effort to bring the two regions together in a common political activity and interest. I hope that the prejudices of the past will completely die and that in legislation and in development there will be a sustained balance between the claims of the Colony and the claims of the Protectorate and harmony fully established between the peoples of the two areas. At the moment, they are integrated sufficiently to demand a common Parliament for the whole territory.
My second apprehension arises from the degree of political inexperience which the people have in the working of democratic institutions. I feel that this must be said. I am sure that Sir Milton Margai will insist on the highest standards of integrity in the political life of the country. In the past, we have heard ugly stories of corruption and nepotism, and we hope that the new country will turn its back on all that sort of thing. In the evolution from traditional forms of society to a modern democratic State, there are very real difficulties to be overcome. I hope that there will be displayed sufficient tolerance and good will, in the working of political institutions so that modern forms of democracy as we know them, modified in the light of the traditions of the country, may be well-established.
I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State of his insistence in his discussions with the Prime Minister of Sierra Leone about the inclusion in the Constitution of a Bill of Rights embodying the principles of toleration and respect for minorities and Opposition. In a new territory, working for the first time towards a genuine democratic system, these things are of fundamental importance.
Because any new territory needs a very strong system of administration and of technical assistance, I urge that we should go as far as we can to persuade our

colonial civil servants to stay and help in the future development of the country. As we have been reminded today, their service has been of a very high quality in the past, and that service is still indispensable for the future prosperity and good life of the country. I hope very much that the administrative framework will not collapse, but that Africans will be quickly trained to take their place in the Service while, in the meantime, our own overseas civil servants are employed in strengthening and helping along the country's life and administrative arrangements.
Whenever a territory reaches independence, particularly a territory which is financially weak, with comparatively limited resources, one factor always stands out. How is it to face the future with confidence when there is still an infinite amount of development work to be done both in equipping and building up the economic resources of the territory and in securing a good standard of life, including the provision for those social and educational services which are so important for its general well-being?
Colonial development and welfare grants will now come to an end for new schemes. The Secretary of State said that about £7½ million in the immediate future may be available by way of grants and loans, but for this very poor country to progress and to establish the standards it will require there will be needed not only technical aid, but a great deal of further financial support from this country. After all, this is our responsibility, and it is a responsibility which we cannot altogether shirk even when a country achieves independence. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take a very generous view of the needs of the territory so that the work of development, both economically and socially, may go ahead.
I join in congratulating Sir Maurice Dorman, Sir Milton Margai and the people of the territory who have made independence both possible and practicable. Finally, if I may, I congratulate the Secretary of State on his courage and audacity at this time in bringing forward the Bill. He has been going through a somewhat bitter period, and it speaks well for him that, in spite of the opposition which has made itself felt among certain supporters of the Government, he nevertheless remains guilty of what I might call a degree of liberal enlightenment.
I am a fellow sympathiser with the right hon. Gentleman. When I held office I, too, was frequently attacked because it was alleged that I was dismembering the Empire and removing colonial status from the dependencies; in fact, I was making efforts to build up a Commonwealth fellowship. The people who are bitter in their attacks on the Secretary of State today are the same people who attacked me when I was engaged in a similar job of trying to build a Commonwealth. The Secretary of State may console himself with the fact that at least a number of those who sit behind him now speak my language and now wear the clothes of Labour's policy. All that is to the good. I therefore congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on what he has done. I hope that the Conservative Party will have the good sense to sustain him in office so that his free and liberal work in the Continent of Africa and, indeed, in what is left of the Colonial Empire, may go on.
I congratulate Sir Milton Margai, the Governor and the people of Sierra Leone on this Bill, and I wish the country all success in the days ahead.

4.51 p.m.

Sir Peter Agnew: In no part of the House has there been any wish to delay, much less to hinder, the passage of this Bill, which will give the people of Sierra Leone their independence. This is a notable occasion, because it is one on which the smallest number of people so far to achieve independence are attaining a position in which they will have to sail out on the comparatively uncharted sea of management of their own affairs, subject only to the good wishes that we give them at the outset of their voyage.
Having said that the sea is uncharted, I should add that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has sought partially to chart it. He has told the House that there will be inserted in the Constitution, by what he described as entrenched provisions, a kind of standard of political conduct in the relationship between the Government and the people which should guide all those who find themselves, after the passage of the Bill into law, in the position of having to conduct the affairs of the territory and dominion of Sierra Leone.
However, I think it is right to utter a note of caution about entrenched provisions being placed either in this Constitution or in the constitution of any other territory which, in the fullness of time and sooner or later, may be the subject of legislation passed through this House. It is true that in the Second Schedule of the Bill there is a provision which states that
Nothing in this Act shall confer on the legislature of Sierra Leone any power to repeal, amend or modify the constitutional provisions otherwise than in such manner as may be provided for in those provisions.
We can insert those words in an imperial Measure that we are shortly to pass, but, after we have passed it and independence is achieved, it will be then that the people of Sierra Leone, through their Government, will have unlimited power to change their Constitution as they will, and they will have power to jettison, if foolish enough to do so, the Bill of Rights which is being entrenched into that Constitution by us today and an accumulated code of wisdom such as we have collected together over many hundreds of years of Parliamentary history.
It is right, therefore, that, in taking up their freedom, which is also their burden of responsibility, the people of Sierra Leone should recognise that if they are to make independence a success it is not only independence of the British Government and of Whitehall that they are achieving. If they are to run their Constitution properly, it is the independence and freedom of each individual within the Constitution of Sierra Leone which is at stake. Therefore, we are right in passing this Measure through as quickly as may be, and I think that the Secretary of State has the support of the House in what he has done. In passing the Bill, we hope that in Sierra Leone, in its new-found freedom, there will prevail those counsels of moderation that we have sought to write into the code which we hand to them with our best wishes.
I join other hon. Members in wishing the Government, Parliament and people of Sierra Leone every success in the great experiment which they are shortly to undertake.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Robert Edwards: It is always a great joy to be in the House on occasions such as this when yet another African State and another African people are about to win their freedom. It indicates the great changes which have taken place in this country when we are willing to accept the great nationalist revolutions of our time, trying to make our peace with them and to give them a constructive direction. Like every other hon. Member, I warmly welcome the Bill. Having said that, I hope the House will forgive me if I make one or two critical remarks which I feel should be made because this House is interested in human freedom.
I was very pleased to hear the opening statement of the Secretary of State, namely, that there would be a general election in Sierra Leone within a year or perhaps before the year is out. I welcome that statement very much, particularly in the light of what is unfortunately happening in Sierra Leone at this moment. The Colonial Secretary mentioned the Constitutional Conference in London in 1959. He referred to the fact that only one vote, namely, that of Siaka Stevens, was cast against independence before a general election. Unfortunately, today in court, at Bow Street, Siaka Stevens was to be ordered to be deported to Sierra Leone under a warrant. It is sad, but symbolic that on the very day that we are discussing independence—

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): Mr. Siaka Stevens is returning to Sierra Leone. He is not being deported, but is returning to Sierra Leone voluntarily to stand any criminal prosecution he may incur there.

Mr. Edwards: Nevertheless, the point I was making, which I think is a valid point, for the sake of the future and for the record, is that on this very day, in Bow Street, the first Minister of Mines and Minerals in Sierra Leone, the leader of its first organised mineworkers union, the head of the one opposition party that exists in that country, has had to face a warrant issued against him in his own country. That has

happened here, in the metropolis of the Commonwealth this very day.
I take a poor view of a situation of this nature, and it might very well be that if this good man, Siaka Stevens, had not been able to communicate with me last Thursday, when he was arrested by four policemen in a most crude fashion, he might have been deported. The four policemen first went to his son's home, a boarding house, looking for his father, and then went to Mr. Stevens' hotel. He was taken to Bow Street and put into the cells, and, if he had not contacted me, it may very well have been that next day he would have been shipped off to Sierra Leone in handcuffs and on a warrant.
I make this point because I think it is dreadfully important for the future of the people of Sierra Leone. Here we are discussing independence and human freedoms, and when we do so, no evil consequences can arise for a people by the pursuit of truth, and that is why I am being so frank, though I am still a supporter of independence for Sierra Leone. At the Constitutional Conference, four parties assembled in London—three major parties and two independent representatives from the diamond area of Kono. Here in London, without any discussion in Sierra Leone, without any discussion in the House of Representatives, these twenty-six people got together and formed a Coalition Government by issuing posts in the new Government with the allocation of jobs to Ministers and Junior Ministers.
No wonder they got an almost unanimous vote for independence before an election. After all, the Government of Sir Milton Margai, with all due respect to him, had only one year to go, and that is not a long time in the history of a country which has not had its freedom for 250 years. One year is not a long time in the great struggle for human freedom, and it seems to me that they could have waited another year, could have had their elections and then independence. I think that is the democratic way of doing things. I think that it is a violation of democratic principles for a small group of articulate politicians to come to London for the constitutional conference and to form a


Government here, without consulting their own people at home and without discussing it in their parliament.
On their return to Sierra Leone, the one voice of the opposition, that of Mr. Wallace Johnson, a great agitator—but all the great things that have happened in this world, all the rights and freedoms we enjoy, have been won by men like Wallace Johnson who were never afraid to fight for human rights, irrespective of the personal sacrifice which they had to make—was silenced. The one opposition voice in the House of Representatives was silenced, because he was arrested, and they threw the book at him, just as they threw it as Sieaka Stevens—sedition, conspiracy, criminal libel, the whole lot. These phrases and charges are meaningless in African politics, and they are meaningless when we listen to what is said in election campaigns in any country in Africa. Wallace Johnston is out on bail of £700, and the one opposition voice is silenced in the House of Representatives.
There was another representative from the diamond area who was also a little doubtful about independence before the election. What happened to him? He went back and he was tried—an elected representative of the people with a very big majority—by a tribal court, against which there is not appeal, and he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for attacking the paramount chief. I do not know if there is any reference in this new constitution which checks the power of the tribal chief in the tribal court, against which there is no appeal, in regard to the trial of a member of the House of Representatives. It seems to me that there is to be no change in this tribal system.
I know the trade union movement in Sierra Leone very well. I have been in contact with it for many years, and, in its own modest way, my own trade union in this country has helped it. I received a petition from the Sierra Leone Council of Labour, which is a very moderate body, as I stated in the House the other day, and, up till now, has been a nonpolitical body. It has never involved itself in politics at all, but has kept right out. It was purely and simply working for trade unionism, is 30,000 strong, and it has a fine system of wage negotiations.
It sent a protest to me, which I passed on to the Colonial Secretary. What did the protest say? It said that before the present House of Representatives there are certain amendments to the law—the Juries Amendment Ordinance—and it insisted that this means that the system of trial by jury may come to an end. There are three systems of courts in Sierra Leone and the Protectorate. There is the tribal court, trial by jury, with a judge and a jury, and another kind of court with a judge and three assessors. This new ordinance will give the judge appointed by the Prime Minister exclusive control over the courts, with no jury, with no assessors, and with no appeal.
I hope that that will be put right, and I am sure they will put it right. I hope they will read the HANSARD report of this debate, and that the Government of Sierra Leone will think again about this ordinance, which will deny many people, particularly political people and trade unionists, the right to trial by jury or trial by assessors. I hope they will think again before they pass legislation of this nature through the House of Representatives. However, I have received much assurance today from the statement that a general election will take place. This is what worries people like me and many of my hon. Friends on this side of the Chamber who are concerned that the people will get the opportunity of discussing the future of their country and that there will not be imposed on any new African State a single party dictatorship, and that the trade union movement, which has grown to strength and power and great influence under colonial rule, will not lose the privileges it gained even under colonialism in a new independent African State.
Having made these critical observations, which I think just had to be made in the light of the present situation in Sierra Leone, may I say how very much I welcome this Bill, and how very much I enjoy these occasions when we can say to millions of people that, after a certain date, they are free to elect their own Governments and run their own countries in their own way without interference from abroad.
We need to assist Sierra Leone for some time to come. Some of the assistance required is not massive sums of


capital investment. From my own experience, I suggest that assistance in small, strategic directions is of great immediate importance to these small African countries whose economy is based on agriculture. They need help to extend their co-operative buying and selling. They want a few technicians to explain to them how to keep the books, how to buy and sell at the right times, how to develop means of mutual aid and self-help, how to run their co-operative banks, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) so rightly said.
These countries need to be shown how to operate credit facilities, so that the farmers' co-operatives can obtain credit for nine months in the year until they harvest their crops. They need advice on the development of small handicraft industries. It is this kind of help, which does not involve hundreds of millions of pounds but goodwill and wise advice, which is needed. It involves sending out people to countries like Sierra Leone who believe in human freedom, who understand the need for mutual aid and self-help, who are dedicated to the job, and who understand the simple needs of African agriculture.
If we can have a continuous flow into Sierra Leone of people like that, there will be no danger of a single-party dictatorship, because out of the co-operatives and trade unions the people will learn democracy. They will learn how to run their own farms, villages and little industries, and out of this experience they will know how to run their own government, and no one party will be able to deny them the rights which they should be assured by this Bill.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: Along with many other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, I have great admiration for the way in which Sir Milton Margai has led his country forward to the state in which many of us welcome the introduction of this Bill. It is undeniable that he has been better capable of holding his followers together than has the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. But I cannot share the view, which seemed implicit in the remarks of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards)—who, I know,

takes a very deep interest in the affairs of Sierra Leone—that the General Election which is coming along will be "cooked" and will not be a free one. That seemed to be the tenor of his remarks, but I am sure that that will not be so.
A transitional period is a difficult one, particularly for overseas civil servants. It redounds much to the credit of Sir Milton Margai and his Ministers that this transitional period in Sierra Leone should have been so free of friction. A great deal is due also to the wise management of Sir Maurice Dorman. No better monument to this period of co-operation could have been given than the choice of Sir Maurice to be the first Governor-General of independent Sierra Leone.
In many ways, Sir Milton has a close political relationship with Earl Attlee. Both men are deceptively strong. Both have a considerable fund of commonsense, and both shun the political and social limelight. I, too, had the advantage of being a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Delegation that visited Sierra Leone. Sir Milton, as Prime Minister, was good enough to give a reception for us. At that reception, a new recruit to the secretariat, inbued no doubt by the British Council's ideal that people should meet people, went up to a lonely figure standing in the shadows and asked him whether he could introduce him to any of the people at the reception. That lonely figure turned out to be our host, the Prime Minister of Sierra Leone.
Sir Milton and his successors will, I am sure, always be welcome in this country. I have no doubt that they will make a valuable contribution to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference when they come. But the introduction of this Bill prompts some thoughts on the problems of what happens to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference following this Bill. Tanganyika and the West Indian Federation will almost certainly be making application to become full members of the Commonwealth within the next twelve months.
There is a possibility that Western Samoa, with a population of about 100,000, will also be making such an application. British Guiana and other


countries are certainly not far down in the queue. It seemed to me that we had already become dangerously close to the level of farce at Chequers the weekend before last, when Prime Ministers seemed to scurry in and out. If that is a model for the future, then there is considerable room for disquiet.
One can imagine that no sooner is His Beatitude the President of Cyprus putting a tasty morsel of chicken into his mouth than the butler will blow a whistle, the plate and chair will be swiftly taken away and a new place laid for the Prime Minister of British Guiana. It seems to me already that the whole nature of the Prime Ministers' Conference is changing.
Once we were told that the whole Conference was an informal meeting of minds. Now, however, things are very different. Only yesterday, in answer to a question from the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
… I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that not only do we have the plenary discussion but, now that quite a number of Prime Ministers are concerned, we have a number of informal discussions between groups of Prime Ministers on various subjects £"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1961; Vol. 637, c. 206.]
It seems that, with the increase in the number of Prime Ministers, informality is moving from the body of the Conference itself into the ante-chambers. To me, that seems to be a move much to be regretted, but this afternoon legitimate concern about the way in which the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference goes should in no way detract from the very warm welcome which we give to Sierra Leone as a new member of the family of the free Commonwealth.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. James Boyden: It so often happens in debates on independence Bills that the debates take place in an atmosphere of crisis, the Government finding themselves facing an impossible situation and having to deal with it. This is a very welcome exception to that generality, and I congratulate the Colonial Secretary very warmly indeed on anticipating the legitimate aspirations of the people of Sierra Leone. Undoubtedly the Prime Minister of Sierra Leone and the present Governor have made a very great contribution towards what I think is the fairly uniform

spirit in Sierra Leone towards independence.
I do not take the view that the present Coalition is a forced coalition. I found when I was there not long ago a desire among all sorts of people at this moment to be united in, as it were, presenting a case to the British Government, and then afterwards going to the polls. I found it very pleasing that Christians and Muslims in the Protectorate, Creoles, ordinary trade union leaders from the branches, and the chiefs were all thinking of independence through—at the moment—this Coalition. I think one can congratulate both the people of Sierra Leone and the Colonial Secretary on bringing to pass this Bill to enable the people to realise their proper aspirations.
Sierra Leone is a very loyal country. It has a very fine tradition of Christian education and Christian self-help. I had the pleasure of visiting the original Fourah Bay College at Regert, founded in 1827, which has made a remarkable contribution to the governing of the Commonwealth and Empire, and it is a very great tribute to the energies and forethought of the people of Sierra Leone. The Church Missionary Society, which founded the college, as far back as 1827, set about training the local people, their teachers, their clergymen, and, in a lesser degree, administrators, to run Sierra Leone and, incidentally, to make a contribution towards the development of Nigeria. I am very proud that I have been associated with the University of Durham in giving this institution in latter days a modern touch. Some of my own staff, when I was at Durham University, went out to found there extra-mural work which, after a number of vicissitudes, is again flourishing. One of my friends will be going out, I hope, in a few days' time, to help in a crisis in a department of the university.
One particular example of this friendliness towards Britain and loyalty to Britain can be found at Bo, the capital of the Protectorate, where the Prime Minister and the people of Bo and the Government have made a very massive contribution to the building of the British Council's headquarters there. Some months ago the Select Committee on Public Accounts made some suggestions about the British Council financing part of its work from the countries in


which it works. In poor Sierra Leone—I mean in the monetary sense—there is this massive contribution to the encouragement of interest in Britain. I think that the friendliness of the people and Government towards the British Council was remarkably demonstrated in developing that centre.
Wherever I went, wherever I was, I found the very greatest friendliness towards British people. For instance, at a most lively lecture in the Union Society of Fourah Bay College and at a very charming reception from the Women's Co-operative Guild at Bo.
I enjoyed the most heart-warming contacts in the extra-mural classes in Freetown, Newton and Lunsar. Everywhere I got the feeling of a developing solidarity based on the coming of independence, and I hope that this will be a good sign that in the future the Government will develop still further democratic forms capable in looking after Sierra Leone's real interests.
Having said that, I cannot share the Colonial Secretary's complacency about the manner in which the constitutional provisions have been made. It may be that there were difficulties about the Commonwealth Conference and the timing of the Bill, but certainly there needed to be much more publicity in Sierra Leone with a clearer setting out of what was coming, and no where is this more important than in the financial arrangements.
I found that at Fourah Bay College the whole future was most uncertain. They were telling me they might be faced with cancelling further building contracts and the dispersal of the direct labour force which has done such a wonderful job of late. They cannot get any certainty about next year's capital grants. I think that this points to very serious flaws in the relations between the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Departments which deal with C.D. and W. grants.
I was very pleased that yesterday the Prime Minister announced the setting up of a Department of Technical Co-operation, and I hope very much indeed that in future developments of this sort that Department will be able to make a much smoother transition on the financial side than there has been in Sierra

Leone. Wherever I went I found examples not exactly of the break down of co-operation but of uncertainty as to the future where there ought to have been pushing forward with new developments.
To take another example, about which I have written to the Colonial Secretary, and I am inclined to agree with his answer. In the Protectorate there is magnificent work in teaching literacy. The Literacy Bureau is in great difficulties. It is struggling to teach enough people to read and is having difficulty in providing them with enough to read when they have become literate. For a long time it has made requests for an automatic printing press to enable it to print far more. When I wrote to the Colonial Secretary and asked him if he could do anything about this at this late hour his reply was, I think, perhaps constitutionally right, that it was late in the day to pick out particular items for development, but I think it would have been very much better if the financial terms and details had been so published that they would have given some hope to the college and the Literacy Bureau and a pointer to the way they could go in the future. I know that now these matters are for the independent Government, but I think that this is the sort of thing we should safeguard when we make other arrangements in the future.
Take another very impressive scheme, the Guma Valley water and electricity scheme. Five years ago I was taken round to see some of the work. It is still not complete. The whole scheme is beyond the unaided financial resources of Freetown. Dams are very unfortunate things in the history of the Conservative Party. The Aswan Dam started consequences which have not finished yet. It is true that the Guma Valley scheme is a much smaller one and not charged with the dynamite of failure as was the Aswan Dam, but there is very great need for things to be done and things to be said to bring a successful termination to projects of this magnitude.
The Colonial Secretary probably knows that there are now no internal airlines in Sierra Leone. The three aircraft which were maintained are grounded, and will be grounded permanently, for I doubt very much whether they can fly again. Here again is something which it seems to me


ought to be dealt with speedily and ought to be dealt with as a contribution to the development of Sierra Leone.
The past history of the Colonial Office in the building of roads in Sierra Leone is deplorable. Five years ago the tarred road from Freetown went 51 miles. Now, five years later, it goes only 91 miles. More bridges have been built, and there has been some progress with dirt roads, but if we compare the progress in Sierra Leone with that in Ghana, then Sierra Leone stands out as a black spot on the record of the Colonial Office.
I could go on enumerating these projects concerning which I found it very distressing that there was not more hope for the future and more tangible evidence of things about to be done. I have written to the Colonial Secretary about the training college and about one or two other matters as well. One particular project in connection with Fourah Bay College in which I think the Colonial Secretary should take more interest is the question of the staff being treated on the same basis as civil servants. Certainly something ought to be done to put the staff of Fourah Bay College on the same level as civil servants in relation to compensation and superannuation. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will apply his mind to that matter.
We are certainly not doing enough in the way of putting forward our own material in Sierra Leone, not in the way of propaganda but in the way of making it easy for its people to learn what is going on in England and to have easy opportunities of learning about England. Could not Her Majesty's Stationery Office publications be made available to Commonwealth universities and university colleges free? Could we not have some reciprocal arrangement with the Commonwealth by which our universities would have much easier and cheaper access to their Government publications?
I found it upsetting, for example, when in anticipation of this debate I wanted to get a number of publications from the Crown Agents about Sierra Leone. I found, first of all, that I had to buy them and then that they were not available either in the Library of the House or immediately in the Crown Agents Office. Surely some imagination could be applied to this matter. Russian propaganda goes into every grammar

school in Sierra Leone. The Russians go to great trouble to provide scholarships, and a number of Fourah Bay College students and sixth form students find their way from time to time to Russian and Czech universities, and, I think, to Chinese universities.
We really must be more positive in our relations with Sierra Leone. The people there are loyal and friendly. They have this very long tradition and we must certainly brighten up our ideas in providing easier and more information about Britain.
I was very pleased to see that in Nigeria there is being developed what looks to be a most excellent scheme for the vacation training of teachers. I hope that Sierra Leone will work out something of that sort, as well, in collaboration with the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Ministry of Education.
Finally, I hope that in the matter of low-cost houses, even when Sierra Leone is independent, our Government will take some practical steps to see that housing there is developed with capital invested by us. When the Governor addressed the House of Representatives on 11th February, 1960, he said:
Sierra Leone's gravest problems will not be concerned with most of the matters mentioned just now"—
that is, the struggle for independence,
with constitutional forms, with the exercise of political and other power, or with the winning of democratic rights. Those are hers now. The struggle Sierra Leone has on its hands is primarily economic and financial.
I hope very much that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will be able to speak constructively about what the Government's opinions are, not only on spending the £7½ million but with regard to seeing that the development of the country can be continuously aided by Britain and that from an improving economic base its democratic traditions can be advanced.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: Like the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), in general terms I welcome the Bill. I propose to take up the time of the House for only a very few minutes because many hon. Members on both sides know Sierra Leone better than I do. I remember the beauty of


the old Colony. I was tremendously impressed with the iron ore development, and I enjoyed greatly the superb port facilities of Freetown. But what I remember most of all is the great friendliness of the people of Sierra Leone.
I count among my particular friends not only Sir Milton Margai and many members of his Cabinet. Only a few weeks ago Mr. Siaka Stevens, to whom the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) referred, was a guest in my home. I do not want to judge in any way what is a matter which must be sub judice, but I think it is well to remember that, as far as I know, every single Sierra Leone party in the last general election stood for independence for Sierra Leone within the lifetime of the present Parliament. That is apt to be forgotten.
It is not for me to balance the arguments of Mr. Siaka Stevens who, after all, stood at that election. It was found that his election was invalid because of corruption and bribery. He told me in my own home of his fear of customary or tribal justice to which the hon. Member for Bilston has referred. I am only glad that he is returning to Sierra Leone of, I gather, his own free will and is not being directed in any way by the Government of this country.
I must apologise to the House for not having been present throughout the whole debate, but I had to receive the Parliamentary delegation from Eire. The leader of that delegation, the Speaker of the Dail, first came to this country as a guest of Her Majesty, as a political prisoner in Wandsworth Gaol. How lucky, I am sure we can all agree, that the relations between this country and Ireland have taken an immense turn for the better. How much more lucky are we really that the relations between this country and Sierra Leone are what they are and that nothing of that sort has ever happened in the past. We can indeed be grateful for the moderation and the common sense of men like Sir Milton Margai, who reminds me very much of the statesmanship of his opposite number on the east coast of Africa, Mr. Nyerere.
I should like to add my commendation to the words of other hon. Members on the appointment of Sir Maurice Dorman at the request of Sir Milton Margai as Her Majesty's Governor-

General. I should also like to say what pleasure we feel that Mr. J. B. Johnston, whom many of us will remember as Lord Boyd's private secretary, should be our future High Commissioner in Freetown. I only hope that in due course he will have a better house in Freetown than the present High Commissioner has in Lagos.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland in his fear for the economic future of Sierra Leone which is dependent on iron ore and bauxite, which, of course, is found the world over, and on diamonds. I am delighted that the revenue from diamonds has gone up in the last year from £6 million to about £15 million through stopping the passage of diamonds over the border. But, even so, Sierra Leone is going to be a very poor country, and I am wondering whether she can afford all the embassies which so many countries in Africa and Asia try to support. Naturally, she must be represented in a major way at the United Nations and in this country, but it may well be that she could be represented by another Commonwealth country, be it Nigeria or Ghana, or even by ourselves, in many other territories of the world. I understand that is costs at least £10,000 a year to keep one representative overseas, and we have got to balance the panoplies of diplomacy against the immense need in countries like Sierra Leone for development and for education.
One final word on education. In the primary schools there was an enrolment of only 69,000 in 1958, which was only one-quarter of the children in the country, and no more than 6,000 enrolled in the secondary schools. Of all the territories in Africa, east or west, Sierra Leone has, I think, the lowest percentage of children of school age receiving education. I am not proud of that, because, after all, the United Kingdom has been responsible indirectly for Sierra Leone for a very long time. I am merely stressing this fact because of the immense need of outside assistance and technical aid which will exist for a long time in Sierra Leone.
In Fourah, I am told, last year only 189 pupils passed the West African G.C.E., and of the 400 students at Fourah Bay about one-half came from Nigeria and, no doubt, will return to Nigeria. So Sierra Leone is going to


be desperately short of intelligent and well-educated people to govern, expand and develop her territory. But she at least enters independence united. No longer is there tremendous feeling against the Protectorate or a feeling in the Protectorate that the people there are treated as backward people by the Creoles of the Colony.
Sierra Leone is now one country. She has been an old friend of ours for many years. From the earliest days she has been attracted to Europe and, above all, to this country. She has shown her friendship to us in two major wars. May she continue to show her friendship and may we continue to extend our help to Sierra Leone.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I am sometimes a critic of the Government's colonial policy, and therefore it gives me special happiness now to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the introduction of this Bill, and not only the right hon. Gentleman but statesmen in Sierra Leone and all those who have contributed to this achievement.
This Bill marks an amazing development in West Africa. It follows Ghana and Nigeria, and I should think that something like 50 million Africans in West Africa who were in our Empire are now self-governing and independent. That is quite an extraordinary development. There is left only Gambia, with very special circumstances, which may have to become incorporated in other territories rather than becoming independent itself.
I want to put a point to the Secretary of State concerning procedure. I am not critical of the delay in the introduction of the Bill. I think it was inevitable in the circumstances. But I ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider whether the whole procedure by which we discuss these Bills should not be revised. The constitutional conference took place ten months ago. I suppose I am one of the fortunate Members, because I saw the draft constitution then, studied it in detail and gave some African members of the conference advice about it. But this House today is passing this Bill without ever having seen the constitution at all.
I believe I am correctly informed that at least until three days ago the members of the Legislature in Sierra Leone also had not seen the constitution. I appreciate that this is a matter of protocol, but I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it is not possible to have some revision of these arrangements. It is unsatisfactory that this Parliament should be passing a Bill without knowing what are the contents of the constitution, and it is also unsatisfactory that Members of the Parliament in Sierra Leone, which is to have its independence, should still be unaware of the contents of the constitution. This matter affects not only our Parliament but their Parliament, and it is of great importance that, if there is to be real democracy in Sierra Leone, the people of Sierra Leone should be informed about the constitution.
I wish to make only one comment on the constitution as I have seen it. I welcome the Bill of Rights. My only criticism of that would be that human rights take a rather subordinate position to rights of property. The rights of property are actually in the body of the constitution. The Bill of Human Rights is an appendix to that constitution, and I think that is a wrong priority.
As I have said, I welcome the Bill, but nevertheless one must appreciate that there is some uneasiness in Sierra Leone at this moment. I am glad that the old conflict between the Protectorate and the Colonies has become so much eased and that there is now much better feeling between them. But the Secretary of State knows that there is uneasiness in Sierra Leone on other matters. Two members of the Legislature have been arrested, are on bail and are to be tried. In addition, members of the executive committee of the opposition party are in a similar position.
I am very concerned that Sierra Leone shall start on the course of independence with political rights and liberties. Only yesterday in the House, after I had put a certain question, an hon. Member opposite rose and by implication suggested that I had not been critical when liberties had been denied in Ghana. In fact, I have been critical. I have raised those issues with the President of Ghana both privately and publicly, as the right


hon. Gentleman knows. I want to see Sierra Leone starting out in a spirit of democracy and with personal liberties which shall not be spoiled as they have been spoiled in certain other African countries.
Because of that I also welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement today that there will be a general election in Sierra Leone within one year. I am glad that an assurance to that effect has been given him by the Prime Minister of Sierra Leone. I hope that that provision for an election within one year of the acceptance of independence will lessen the fears and tensions now operating in Sierra Leone.
I want to make one personal appeal to Sir Milton Margai, the Prime Minister, who will be the head of the independent Government. I appeal to him, before independence is introduced, to declare an amnesty so that Members of Parliament and members of a party executive who are now charged may be liberated. In this way, the independence of Sierra Leone can begin in an atmosphere in which there will be hope for full democracy, full liberty and, because of those things, with the full co-operation of the people.
To that appeal to the Prime Minister of Sierra Leone, I add an appeal to the Secretary of State to the Colonies and to the Government. Evidence has been given from both sides of the House of the absence of education, of economic development and even of roads in Sierra Leone. We in this Parliament have a great deal of responsibility for that. I am asking the Secretary of State to say today that, despite the fact that Sierra Leone will become independent, we shall give the greatest possible help to remedy those defects, that we will give the greatest possible help in industrial development, in road building, particularly in schools and in crowning the elementary schools with secondary schools.
I am appalled to hear, as I have heard in this House this afternoon, that the campaign against malaria in Sierra Leone is being held up because our Government have not given adequate contributions for that purpose. There need not be in three years' time a single case of malaria in Sierra Leone. We have ended it over vast areas of Africa.

It could be ended if there were adequate expenditure upon it and proper technical aid so that this should be done.
I ask the Secretary of State, not merely to have the honour of introducing this Bill to extend independence to Sierra Leone, but, before the Bill is passed, to assure this House and the people of Sierra Leone that we will provide a social and economic foundation upon which that independence can develop, not only to true democracy, but to true happiness in the ordinary life of the men and women of the territory.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Martin McLaren: I have promised to be very short and I will be. As the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said, I was a member of the delegation which he led in December to Sierra Leone and of which, I might add, the right hon. Gentleman was a kindly and stimulating leader. It is rather attractive that when so many other parts of Africa are stormy we should be able to turn for a short time to Sierra Leone where independence is coming so smoothly and happily.
It is fortunate that the Prime Minister of Sierra Leone is Sir Milton Margai. Those who know him know how well qualified he is to lead the country into independence. His work as a gynaecologist has made him widely known in the parts of the country where he practised. That has made many people look on him as their friend and feel personal gratitude for him. In that way he has built up a fund of personal good will. It is characteristic of his vitality that even now, when he is in the middle sixties, he is still no mean athlete.
It is excellent news that Sir Maurice Dorman, now the Governor, is to be the first Governor-General. Those who know how closely he and Lady Dorman have identified themselves with the life of the country and who know the warm regard that is felt for them will think that no better choice could have been made.
In recent years the grants which this country has made under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts have been very valuable, but there is still much that remains to be done to develop the social services, to expand education,


to improve the road communications, to which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) referred, to build more bridges and to clean up the slums of Freetown. There is no system of social security yet. When people fall out of their employment they have to live off the charity of their relations.
When one travels by boat along Freetown Harbour, one finds a moving sight, the historic stone stairs up which the thousands of slaves climbed to find themselves free men on setting foot in Sierra Leone. That is why the capital is called Freetown. The settlement was started at the end of the eighteenth century by Granville Sharp, who was a friend of William Wilberforce, for rescued slaves and Africans repatriated from the West Indies. He did it as a generous attempt to atone for the horrors of the slave trade. The descendants of those people, the Creoles, are still influential in Freetown.
Here at Westminster, one of the best and most disinterested chapters has been the moral campaign for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade. In a sense, we are today writing the final chapter in that long and honourable story when we welcome Sierra Leone as a fully independent member of the Commonwealth.

5.58 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux: It would be a pity if all the hon. Members who have spoken from both sides of the House in this debate were to have avoided, as it has perhaps so far seemed almost ostentatiously, following up the main part of the speech of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards). Therefore, although I do not want to go into the matter deeply, because I have no doubt that it will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State when he replies to the debate, having met Mr. Stevens on two occasions when I was recently out in Sierra Leone and on one occasion recently in this country, I should like to say that it certainly is tragic that the events described by the hon. Member for Bilston should have come to our notice on the very day that we are taking the Second Reading of this Bill, which in the ordinary way should be an entirely happy occasion unmarked by any tragedy of this nature.
I shall be brief, not because I feel that this debate on such an important subject should be cut down to make way for a full five hours on the troubles in South Africa but because, as I am the last speaker to be called before my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary sums up the debate, most of the points that could be made have already been made by others.
I certainly do not want to repeat them, but out of gratitude alone I should like to say something because I was, as has been mentioned, a member of the delegation to Sierra Leone three months ago which was led, if I may say so, with such charm of manner and with such ability by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand). The tremendous kindness that we received from everybody there, from Sir Milton Margai, the Prime Minister, down to the ordinary villagers in the most distant villages of the Protectorate, is a memory I shall treasure for a long time.
Hon. Members have very differing views about the value of that type of visit. Many hon. Members think that all such Parliamentary delegations are a complete waste of time and money, and have some extremely acid comments to make about people who come back after visiting for about ten days some part of the world that they have never seen before, and then set themselves up as experts on the country concerned. There are others, of whom I am one, who think that there is inestimable value to be obtained from such visits, and that the more of them that can be paid by hon. Members the better.
The principal impression that I obtained from my visit to Sierra Leone was of the remarkable harmony and sense of partnership with which two different races, our own people and those of Sierra Leone, were working together for the good of the country and its advancement towards independence.
Only one controversial point came up during the Constitutional Conference last April, and it has not so far been referred to in this debate. I speak of the defence agreement that it was decided should be negotiated between ourselves and Sierra Leone after independence had been granted. That part of the agreement was challenged by the newly-forming Opposition under Mr. Stevens and Mr. Wallace


Johnson, and it has also been commented on adversely to me by some people from Sierra Leone whom I have recently met in this country.
A lot of them see in the defence agreement a sort of hangover of colonialism on our part. It is true that such an agreement with Sierra Leone would be of use to us. Anyone who can remember the vast conveys assembling during the last war in that magnificent harbour at Freetown will hardly challenge that. But whereas such an agreement may be useful to us, I think that it is of far greater potential value to the people of Sierra Leone.
Some of them have asked me, "What do we get out of that, except a certain amount of embarrassment? Who on earth would we want to be defended against? Who will attack us?" Well, if one looks around Africa as it is today, and as it has been in the last few years, I think it would be agreed that it would be a very complacent citizen of Sierra Leone who would say that never in the future did he think that the people there might be glad to have someone close at hand and able to help them, someone such as ourselves, who, I am certain they all believe, will ever remain one of their best friends.
Another matter referred to by a number of speakers is the definite feeling of what might be called unease that members of the delegation sensed amongst many people in Sierra Leone about the advent of independence. I believe that when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) led a delegation to Sierra Leone some two years ago, he said that there was widespread enthusiasm there for independence. I can well believe that, but it always happens that when these events become imminent people begin to have their doubts. Some of the people living far out in the Protectorate in Sierra Leone certainly cast their eyes across the border to other countries in Africa where independence—that word that many of them so vaguely understand—has become a fact, were not entirely pleased with everything they saw.
However, my belief is that the people of Sierra Leone need not be too nervous about the coming of independence, quick

as it is. The constitutional steps taken towards it in the last year or two have admittedly been rapid, but I feel that they have been very well timed and that, as a result, the transition will be smooth. It only remains for me, therefore, to join with previous speakers, and, I am sure, with every other hon. Member, in wishing the very best of luck and the greatest prosperity in the future to our new partner in the Commonwealth.

6.6 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): We have had more than a formal debate this afternoon on this great step forward for Sierra Leone. On all sides there have been well-informed Members advising both the Government and those who will inherit power on certain steps that it would be mutually advantageous for the two countries to take after April, when the people of Sierra Leone will have power devolved upon them. It is only fair, therefore, that in the short time at my disposal I should attempt to answer some of the main points that have been made.
Reference has been made to the delay in the publication of the Bill, but we have had to wait. It will be seen from the Title that this is a Bill to
Make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Sierra Leone of fully responsible status within the Commonwealth.
We had to wait until the Commonwealth Conference took place. We could not publish this Title until that Conference had welcomed Sierra Leone's joining the Commonwealth.
A point has also been made about lack of publicity of the precise terms of the Constitution. This is a matter at which my right hon. Friend and I will look but, of course, we are up against problems of precedent. It is fair to say that this draft Constitution will contain only those provisions agreed by the Conference last year. They could, in fact, have been published earlier and I agree that, perhaps, in the future we should have a wider degree of latitude. Looking back, what we should perhaps have done was to make more public the findings of the actual Conference in London last May. I shall certainly look at that matter again.
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said that


there was need for a lively Opposition in the new Sierra Leone. There, we fully agree.
The main point raised from the benches opposite was on the question of financial aid to a territory which is not, by its nature, rich. I want also to answer some of the detailed matters raised by one of my hon. Friends who has just returned, and by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), who referred specifically to aircraft and the Guma Dam. First, the contract for the dam has been awarded. Secondly, from colonial development and welfare funds we are replacing the Rapide by the new Pioneer aircraft.
On the wider issues, we have here a territory which, compared with other territories in Africa, is not rich. I am sure that when hon. Members on both sides say that the true and abiding wealth of Sierra Leone lies in its land, they are right. As one of my hon. Friends remarked, the output from the diamond industry has gone up with improved control of the industry, and the iron ore and bauxite possibilities of the country remain great; but the main wealth must remain in the land.
I think that the offer of my right hon. Friend to continue to provide the Sierra Leone Government with technical assistance after independence is of great importance. Also, the provisions decided upon at the Conference are of great importance. First, there are the financial aids, which will continue, though here again, because of the change of status, there will have to be some alteration in the C.D. and W. and even the C.D.C. assistance. But I can say that all schemes already entered into will be completed. The C.D.C. has an important part to play in the water supply scheme, which is going forward, and in other schemes.
Beyond the existing schemes, I think it worth reminding the House that there are the chances of assistance from the C.D.F.C., and that, already, £400,000 is going into the large water scheme from this source. There are also other international funds which are available for development and, in addition, recourse to the London market as an independent country. I am sure that the statement recently made by Sir Milton Margai about the importance of capital and the

fact that his Government had no intention of embarking upon any nationalisation will be of great benefit when finance is sought, as, indeed, Sierra Leone must seek it, from overseas.
I must correct the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), who said that while human rights were covered in the Bill of Rights, they had less priority in the Constitution than property rights. The hon. Member is ill-informed. It is really a question of reading the White Paper, and if the hon. Member looks at paragraph 20 (a) he will find that fundamental rights are fully enshrined in the procedure which my right hon. Friend described.

Mr. Brockway: It is the hon. Gentleman who has misunderstood me. What I quite clearly said was that the protection of the rights of property is embodied in Clauses of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is an appendix to the Constitution. It is enshrined in the Constitution by a particular reference in the body. My complaint was that the Bill of Rights is an appendix while the justification of property rights is in the Clauses of the Constitution itself.

Mr. Fraser: Certainly, fundamental human rights are entrenched, and that is the vital thing. Where they come precisely in the Constitution is a different matter.
One of our first considerations is, I believe, how we can be of further assistance to Sierra Leone after independence so that we can make certain that the economic future of the country is assured.
The other wide area that we have discussed is the question of the Constitution itself and the feeling both in this House and in Sierra Leone that it was essential that proper human rights should be safeguarded. My hon. Friend went at some length through the safeguards and the entrenchment clauses which will make certain that there can be no alterations to these fundamental rights, to the fundamental rights of Parliament and to the fundamental rights of the judiciary without, first, a two-thirds majority passing it in the Sierra Leone House, then a General Election, and following that, again a two-thirds majority. If one considers this process one finds that the entrenchment of these rights is satisfactory.
The cases of certain members of the Opposition, and, in particular, the case of Mr. Siaka Stevens have been raised. I am unable to comment on these individual cases, as they are, and must be, sub judice, but I should like to point out to those who have raised these matters that even the Government of a country which is on the verge of achieving independence must ensure that the due course and process of the law runs. If there are to be charges of criminal libel and other things, these cases must be permitted to proceed. This is what the Government of Sierra Leone have done. Various things have been said on both sides of the House regarding these matters, and I hope that many of the things which have been said this afternoon will receive a ready ear in the territory.
As we look forward to 27th April, I think that it will be a proud day for Sierra Leone. It will also, I believe, be a proud day for this country. Politically, all parties in this House will see the achievement as a main objective of our colonial policy, that of granting independence to our dependent territories. I believe that all those who have visited Sierra Leone will agree that no people among the emergent peoples are more deserving of this grant than the people of that territory.
If our political sense should be stirred by this event, so, too, should, I think, be our historical imagination. As one looks back on the course of history over

the last 190 years, one recognises that in Sierra Leone, on 27th April, there will be the culmination of an expression of freedom worked for by many in this realm far beyond the confines of this House of Parliament. Freetown was truly named. It is not too fanciful to say that its freedom traces back to the famous judgment of Lord Mansfield; indeed, James Somerset was among its first citizens. It was not merely in the High Court of Parliament or in the courts of justice here that these aims were pursued. There have been many people from this country—soldiers, administrators, missionaries and traders—who have given their lives for Sierra Leone. Let us, on this occasion, pay tribute to them.
I think that we, as a people, can be satisfied in truth and in honour; but, of course, the great pride is for the people of Sierra Leone themselves. This is a small country compared with the other great States of Africa. Before them lies a new span of history, but I feel sure that in their sense of national destiny and purpose, with the support of ourselves and, indeed, of the whole Commonwealth, they will surmount the problems lying ahead of them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (WITHDRAWAL FROM COMMONWEALTH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

6.21 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Last week, I announced to the House the decision of the Prime Minister of South Africa to withdraw the application of the South African Government to remain in the Commonwealth after that country becomes a republic on 31st May. I described this decision as unavoidable in the circumstances. Although the House is well acquainted with the general background, I think that it would be as well for me to say a few words about the developments which have led South Africa to withdraw from the family of nations forming the Commonwealth.
Hon. Members will recall that last year the representative of South Africa informed the Prime Ministers' Conference that his Government intended to hold a referendum on the proposal that South Africa should become a republic. At that meeting the Commonwealth Prime Ministers were asked to give their agreement in advance to the continued membership of a republican South Africa in the Commonwealth.
The Prime Ministers felt unwilling at that time to agree. They were influenced by two considerations. First, such a decision might have been construed as an attempt to influence the referendum and therefore as an interference in a matter which was clearly one for the people of South Africa alone. Secondly, the precedents showed that although it was not necessary to withhold approval until all the constitutional processes had been completed, it was not proper to give approval before the decision to make a constitutional change of this kind was beyond all doubt. South Africa was accordingly invited to delay the application for renewed membership until after the referendum. That was last year.
The referendum was held in October, 1960. As the House knows, the result was in favour of a republic. The necessary legislation in South Africa has been introduced, and the intention is to

declare the republic at the end of May this year. Accordingly, when the Prime Minister of South Africa brought this question to the Conference this month there was no longer any reason to delay a decision.
The application which he put forward was for South Africa to stay in the Commonwealth as a republic. If it had been possible to deal with the application as a purely constitutional matter, there need have been no difficulty. For the great decision of principle as to whether the Commonwealth should continue to rest on allegiance to the Crown or whether republican States might be members was in fact settled in 1949.
In that year India became a republic but remained a member of the Commonwealth, accepting the Sovereign as head of the Commonwealth as a symbol of our unity. Since then Pakistan and Ghana have become republics within the Commonwealth, and Ceylon has been given an assurance that she will continue to be welcome as a republican member, although she is in fact still a monarchy.
It was clear that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers as a whole did not feel themselves able to treat the continued membership of South Africa as a purely formal or procedural question. In view of the strong feelings on the racial policies pursued by the Government of South Africa, the discussion could not be narrowed to the constitutional point. Because of the wide implications of South Africa's racial policies for other members of the Commonwealth and their effect on world opinion, this matter could not be dealt with on the basis of the constitutional change alone.
Dr. Verwoerd himself recognised this. Although it is an established convention of these meetings that we do not discuss the domestic affairs of a member country without the consent of that country, the Prime Minister of South Africa agreed that on this occasion the racial policy of the Union Government should be discussed. In this I am sure he was right, for this question had become, as I say, more than a matter of domestic interest to South Africa. It had aroused widespread international interest and concern. It affected in various ways the relations between South Africa and other members of the Commonwealth. It was even threatening to damage the concept of the


Commonwealth itself as a multi-racial association. In all those circumstances it was impossible to overlook the racial issue. In fact, as the House knows, it became the dominant issue, and the purely constitutional point was overshadowed.
May I say in passing that I do not at all accept the view, which I have seen expressed in the last few days, that this means that the Commonwealth will in future turn itself into a body for passing judgment on the internal affairs of member countries. I see no reason why the existing convention to which I have referred should not be maintained. After all, it was not broken on this occasion, for the Prime Minister of South Africa agreed that this discussion should be held. There were, as I have indicated, good reasons why it should have been held on this occasion—because of the grave external effects of the policy to which I have drawn attention.
I had at this Conference two functions, inevitable in the circumstances, where by tradition the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is invited to preside over these meetings. First, as Chairman it was my duty to guide the discussion and try to lead it to the decision most helpful to growing co-operation within the Commonwealth. It was also my duty to present the view of the British Government and, I hope, of the British people.
I have never concealed, nor do I wish now to conceal, from the House or the country that in my view there were very good arguments for taking the course of allowing the application of South Africa on constitutional grounds, but at the same time expressing the strongest disapproval of her racial policies. I know that many hon. Members, and many people in the country, took a different view, but I will give my reasons frankly. No one in this House approves, indeed we all deplore, the principle which underlies the policy which is generally known as apartheid. That is not because many of us are unaware of our own failings or are anxious to throw the first stone. Hardly any country at some time in its history, nor even at the present time, can stand blameless.
All kinds of discrimination—not only racial, but political, religious and cul-

tural—in one form or another have been and are still practised, often as a survival of long tradition. But the fundamental difference between ours and the South African philosophy is that we are trying to escape from these inherited practices. We are trying, with varying degrees of success but always with a single purpose, to move away from this concept in any form. What shocked the Conference was that the policy of the present South African Government appeared to set up what we would regard as an unhappy practice, inherited from the past, perhaps, as a philosophy of action for the future. This philosophy seemed altogether remote from and, indeed, abhorrent to the ideals towards which mankind is struggling in this century, in the free world at any rate, and perhaps—who knows—sooner or later behind the Iron Curtain.
It was not, therefore, because all of us are without sin that we felt so strongly. It was because this apartheid theory transposes what we regard as a wrong into a right. I do not question the sincerity with which these views are held by many people in South Africa, or their very deep conviction that theirs is the right course in the interests of all races, but we in Britain have never been in doubt that this is a wrong course.
A year ago, in Capetown, I tried to express—I hope courteously, but quite firmly—what was the British view, and I do not think that many people in this House dissented from what I then said. All this accentuation and systemisation of the policy of apartheid is something very new. I am not saying that there was no discrimination in the days of the great South African leaders like Smuts and Botha, but those men had in their minds an inspiring vision, and had the intention and purpose of moving gradually towards it. I still believe that as the years go by this ideal will grow in strength in South Africa.
Is it then right—I asked myself—to cut South Africa away from the Commonwealth? Our two countries have links forged in history. We have known what it means to fight against each other. We have also known what it means to fight side by side in defence of freedom in two world wars. There are the close connections of our own countrymen, hundreds of thousands of


whom will deeply regret the severance of the Commonwealth ties. But, apart from all these strong considerations of sentiment, I was not satisfied that the exclusion of South Africa from the Commonwealth would best help all those European people who do not accept the doctrine of apartheid, and the growing body whose opinions are in flux. Nor, as far as I could see, would it help the millions of Africans.
Moreover, it seemed to me that there was a danger of falling into a somewhat Pharisaical attitude in this. In my view—and I am not ashamed to say so—it was better to hold out our hands and help than to avert our eyes and pass by on the other side. It is not my intention, nor do I think it would be proper for me, to give an account of the discussions which took place at the Conference. Those discussions are confidential, and all Prime Ministers should try to preserve, in respect of them, the traditional confidence of a national Cabinet. However, the communiqué which we published—and it was published with the agreement of all concerned, including the Prime Minister of South Africa—made quite clear what happened, and I have very little to add.
But I am convinced—and I must say this—that had Dr. Verwoerd shown the smallest move towards an understanding of the views of his Commonwealth colleagues, or made any concession, had he given us anything to hold on to or any grounds for hope, I still think that the Conference would have looked beyond the immediate difficulties to the possibilities of the future. For, after all, our Commonwealth is not a treaty-made league of Governments; it is an association of peoples.
But the Prime Minister of South Africa, with an honesty which one must recognise, made it abundantly clear beyond all doubt that he would not think it right to relax in any form the extreme rigidity of his dogma, either now or in the future. And it is a dogma. To us it is strange, but it is a dogma which is held with all the force of one of those old dogmas which men fought and struggled for in the past.
Our discussions were held in an atmosphere of great courtesy, dignity and calm, but that made the underlying tension all the more real There was no

question of the expulsion of South Africa, for it became apparent to Dr. Verwoerd himself that he could not serve the Commonwealth or help its unity and coherence in any other way except by withdrawing his application. This he did, and so, for the time being, ended over half a century of South Africa's membership of our Commonwealth.
Nevertheless, I do not feel that we should regard this as the end of the story. We shall always have a special feeling for the people of South Africa, of all races. We shall watch with a continuing interest their development, and I still think that the more we are able to maintain personal and individual contacts with our friends there the greater our influence will prove to be.
But at the end of the day I do not believe that it will be words which will win—certainly not bitter words and recrimination. What might well influence the people of South Africa most is the proof that those of us who extol the virtues of partnership between the races are able to translate our theories into facts, to establish on African soil a practical example of a non-racial society that works to the benefit of all its peoples. Today we have such a chance in Central Africa, and I pray that we and those of every party and race in these territories will seize it while time yet remains.
I do not for a moment under-estimate the difficulties or the magnitude of the political problems which stand in the way. Of course there are differences, both of view and, above all, of emphasis, especially about the pace of advance, but I believe that we are all agreed on our objective. In that spirit let us move towards it. In that way I think that we can best help South Africa.
Last Thursday I undertook to say a word or two about some of the practical problems which will arise as a result of this decision. I am sure the House will understand that although these are being carefully studied by the Departments concerned I am not yet in a position to do more than speak in very general terms. The questions fall into different categories of varying importance. Even if South Africa had remained in the Commonwealth, the change from a monarchy to a republic would have required consequential legislation in our Parliament. But this would have been


comparatively simple, and would have followed precedent.
We have now to consider the other results, and these matters cannot be settled without a good deal of thought on each side, or without negotiations with the South African Government. It will probably be most convenient to introduce a Bill to make temporary provision for the period immediately following 31st May. The purpose of such a Bill will be to maintain the operation of the existing law for a specified, limited period both in the United Kingdom and British dependent territories. This will give us an interval during which both Governments can consider the important questions which have to be dealt with.
First, there is the question of nationality or citizenship. This is a deeply personal matter causing, no doubt, anxiety to many South Africans, both those living in South Africa and especially those of British descent and those very many South Africans living and working outside the Union. We must look carefully into this and make no hurried decisions.
Then there are certain trade and financial matters which we must consider. As regards the sterling area, the Prime Minister of South Africa has already said that his country would wish to remain a member. No legislation is needed in this connection. As the House well knows, there are a number of countries outside the Commonwealth who are already members of the sterling area. These include not merely countries like Burma, which were formerly part of the old British Empire, but also countries like Iceland, Jordan and Libya.
Then there is the question of preferential arrangements which affect trade both ways. These, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, said in the House yesterday, are governed by the bilateral agreement concluded after the Ottawa Conference in 1932 and will be unaffected by South Africa's changed status. I am informed that the maintenance of these preferential arrangements is not affected by our obligations under G.A.T.T. There are other fields where we have co-operated with successive South African Governments and, if both our countries

regard it as mutually advantageous and if it is found to be compatible with South Africa's non-membership of the Commonwealth, I have no doubt that this co-operation can and will continue.
I am sorry I cannot give more precise information to the House at this stage. Meanwhile, I repeat that I am sure the best course is to introduce a standstill Bill to give us time to sort these matters out in negotiation between the two Governments.
In quite another class are our rights and duties towards the three High Commission Territories. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked me a Question on Thursday to which I think I made a quite categorical reply. These territories remain in the same relationship with us as before and we shall continue to accept and discharge our obligations and responsibilities in accordance with undertakings which have been many times repeated by many of my predecessors. We must, of course, also recognise that they have common borders and close economic ties with the Union of South Africa, and no doubt there will be many practical questions concerning the High Commission Territories which we shall have to continue to discuss with the Union Government. There are many such questions—postal arrangements, railway arrangements, and many things of that kind.
I do not wish to detain the House except perhaps to allow me to add a few general reflections. There are some who think that the Commonwealth will be gravely and even fatally injured by this blow. I do not altogether share this view. I do not share it at all. After all, in the years since the war, the whole concept of the Commonwealth has radically changed. In the past it was four or five countries populated by people of, broadly, British descent linked together by their common allegiance as subjects of the Crown. From 1949 onwards it has become more and more a group of countries associated historically with this island, developed, strengthened, brought to their independence by a long and not inglorious effort of ordinary British men and women—missionaries, traders, doctors and administrators—countries which with these recollections of the past have decided to go forward together and face the perils


of the future. This association must depend not on the old concept of a common allegiance but upon the new principle of a common idealism.
The note on which I would wish to close is simply this. Whatever one's view, this is a very sad event; sad because of what seems to us a tragically misguided and perverse philosophy which lies at the root of apartheid; sad because of the many people in South Africa who, I am certain, would like it at least tempered and made more elastic and more humane; sad because this event marks the end of an association of our countrymen for over a hundred years with colonies formed in Capetown, Natal and elsewhere; sad because it is the end of a fifty-year connection which began with a decision then hailed as an outstanding example of magnanimity after victory; sad because it makes a breach in a community which has a great part to play in the world.
Yet, I will not end on that note. As I said on Thursday, sad as it is, we must look to the future. The statement on disarmament annexed to our final communiqué is, I believe, an important and significant achievement of this Conference. Despite our preoccupation with other problems, we were able quietly and patiently to exchange ideas and views and in friendly discussion to reach and to record agreement on a common aim in relation to the most important question facing the world today. This achievement is a demonstration of the vitality of the Commonwealth and a more convincing answer than any words of mine to any fainthearts whose courage is failing.
Nor is the loss of South Africa to the Commonwealth, when it comes, the end of the story. I read in one of the newspapers a phrase which struck me greatly. It said that the flag of South Africa must now be flown at half mast. So be it. But let us look forward to the day, perhaps not so distant as it may seem now, when it can again be hoisted in triumph to the masthead.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Whatever our views on this momentous event may be, I feel confident that we should all warmly endorse the Prime Minister's closing remarks. However much we abhor the policies of the South

African Government it is certainly no part of our wish that we should cut ourselves off from the people of South Africa.
This is undoubtedly an event of great historic significance. I do not think that anybody would deny that. It marks a turning point in Commonwealth affairs. Many different accounts have been given of the Conference itself. Some have said that it was Dr. Verwoerd who was intransigent and others that it was the bitter hostility of some of the other Prime Ministers that provoked him. Some have said that the British Government did their best to keep South Africa in. Others, like one newspaper, have said that South Africa was forced out by Britain. I do not propose to discuss these matters. I think that they are more for historians and, no doubt, will be disclosed as time goes by in memoirs.
I would only say this an the British attitude. If the Prime Minister tried, as I think he did from his words today, to keep South Africa in, and tried very hard, then I suppose that one must say that the policy failed. Yet I would add that, personally, I doubt whether it could have succeeded except at too great a cost to the Commonwealth. For, even supposing the Prime Ministers had agreed to accept South Africa's continued membership while, at the same time, setting out their dislike of the South African Government's policy, I feel that after the tremendous build-up in the world's Press of what was taking place in London at that time such a solution might have turned out not to be a solution at all.
It could, indeed, have been disastrous if, for instance, after the Conference Dr. Verwoerd had return to South Africa claiming, as it were, some kind of triumph because he was remaining in the Commonwealth while, at the same time, other Prime Ministers were giving very different accounts of what had taken place. Nor would the argument have stopped merely because this year's Conference had been settled in that way.
Be that as it may, far more important than the different accounts of what took place are, I think, the different views on the significance of this event. Some, as the Prime Minister has said, are pessimistic. Sir Roy Welensky, Sir Edgar


Whitehead and Dr. Verwoerd himself have talked as though this were the beginning of the end of the Commonwealth, that it started a process which will continue until, one by one, other Commonwealth countries leave us.
It is perhaps worth pausing for a moment to ask why they take such a pessimistic view. It may be, in part, because of a certain difference in their attitude, or in the extent to which their feelings are aroused about this issue of racial policy, but I think that more important than that as a reason for their pessimism is the fear that a new precedent has been created which involves interference by the Commonwealth in the domestic affairs of one of the members of the Commonwealth.
The Prime Minister has explained to us that South Africa's racial policy was discussed at the Conference only with the consent of the Prime Minister of South Africa, and that that, as it were, is a safeguard. Nevertheless, these other Prime Ministers, as they have made plain, clearly continue to have serious anxieties. They appear to think that next year it may be, shall we say, Australia's immigration policy which will be brought up—indeed, Mr. Menzies himself referred to this possibility—or that on some other occasion the political system adopted in some other Commonwealth country will come in for criticism and that, in indignation at their internal affairs being discussed at the Prime Ministers' Conference, other nations may leave the Commonwealth.
I think that behind this fear lies something of great importance, a political conception of what the Commonwealth is. Behind the notion that internal policies cannot be discussed without creating great dangers lies a conception of the Commonwealth which I personally regard as now out of date. It is a conception which implies that we go on in the Commonwealth as a group, not because we have common ideals or standards of conduct, but as it were, for purely historical reasons because we are members of a family.
No doubt there are military alliances in some cases and there are economic ties in other cases which, so to speak, add to this historical background, but the whole assumption of that point of view is that the Commonwealth consists of a

group of countries with natural ties to one another, which countries do not, in fact, concern themselves with the internal policies of the others, with natural ties that are so strong that they can resist any possible divergencies there may be between the policies of the different countries. Furthermore, this conception of the Commonwealth carries with it, I think, the idea that the natural ties are all that is necessary to justify its existence.
This is a perfectly natural point of view for the people of Australia and New Zealand, and perhaps of Canada, to adopt. Here we have a blood relationship, if one may use that phrase, because those countries were colonised from Great Britain and, unquestionably, either we would have a position in which differences of the kind that we are discussing this afternoon would not arise, or the differences, such as they were, would not be sufficient to outweigh the family ties, the natural ties which have developed over the years. Equally, in this case I think that the people of those countries—or many of them—would be perfectly happy to regard our country from their point of view in that light, but, as the Prime Minister implied in his closing remarks, the same argument does not apply to the new nations of the Commonwealth.
Whether we like it or not, they are not tied to us in quite the same way as the older Dominions are. It is no use pretending that in their case the so-called family tie is anything like so strong on its own. Certainly, in the case of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, the existence of a common history, the link that we have with them both politically and economically, is strong, although it has to be noted that in the case of India and Ceylon there is no military alliance. Certainly for the time being language provides some sort of bond, but it is doubtful how long that will continue.
I do not believe that in the years ahead this purely family tie will be enough for the new nations of Asia and Africa to remain in the Commonwealth. There must be something else if they are to regard the Commonwealth as worthwhile, and that something else can only be common ideals and the feeling that the Commonwealth as a whole is something which is worthwhile for what it can do in the world.
In any event, the doctrine of not discussing the internal affairs of member countries broke down this year. It was bound to break down as soon as those policies spilled over in a way which tremendously affected the other members of the Commonwealth. There can be no doubt that this was the case so far as apartheid was concerned. It is, as I said the other day, a direct affront to the vast majority of the peoples of the Commonwealth who happen to be coloured. It was an embarrassment in our international relations, especially in the United Nations. It was, in my view, an additional source of friction wherever there was racial conflict. And the fact that the South African Government had refused to have diplomatic relations with other Commonwealth countries whose people were coloured was, of course, an added insult.
All of this had reached such a stage, produced such a contradiction inside the Commonwealth that, as I said earlier, I think that the point had been reached when it was almost inevitable that a break had to come.
Does this mean, however, as is suggested by Mr. Menzies and others, that there will be in the future other cases where conflict develops and argument develops and that the Commonwealth is accordingly weakened? I do not believe this. I agree with the Prime Minister here. I think that there is an essential difference between precept and practice.
It is quite true, of course, that there are racial conflicts elsewhere in the Commonwealth, but there is no other country which positively accepts as its ideology a policy of racial discrimination. That seems to be of fundamental importance. One can easily understand a discussion at a future Prime Ministers' Conference about an unfortunate racial riot which had broken out in some territory. One can easily understand its being discussed calmly, because, fundamentally, the Prime Ministers would agree how undesirable that kind of thing was and they would be talking about how to prevent it. That is very different from talking with someone who simply starts from totally different premises.
Secondly, I do not believe that, necessarily, these difficulties will arise in future, because I do not see for the

moment any particular internal policies of other countries in the Commonwealth which have such an impact on the rest of the Commonwealth. If, for example, in the future any Commonwealth country were, unfortunately, to fall into the hands of an openly Fascist or Communist Government, that would certainly create a very great strain and we might have to face the same kind of situation which we have faced in the last few years. But, unless and until that happens, I do not think that the divergencies and differences—and there must be such, for instance, in the political systems—will be of such a character as to produce the explosion which occurred this year.
I pass to the consequential problems created by the decision of the South African Prime Minister. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that it is not wise to rush into decisions. These certainly are difficult issues and for myself I think that his proposal to have a Bill which keeps things going temporarily while negotiations, discussions, and so on are going on is not unreasonable.
As a matter of general principle, we have somehow to steer away from the two extremes. We do not want it to be supposed in the world as a whole, or in the Commonwealth, that it makes no difference at all whether a country is in the Commonwealth or not. We have to avoid that, but, equally, we do not needlessly wish to damage the interests of the people of South Africa. We have already said—the Prime Minister said it and I have said it—that we are deeply concerned about our relations with them. It would be foolish to do anything vindictive which would antagonise opinion in South Africa and possibly postpone the day when it may return to the Commonwealth.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What about the boycott?

Mr. Gaitskell: The boycott was a personal matter, a matter best left to the consciences of individual Members. I happen to believe in it, and, if I had the time, I would explain to the noble Lord, but I have never proposed that Government sanctions should be applied.
The Prime Minister said that citizenship was a difficult issue. I do not see how one can apply the Irish precedent


entirely, because in that case there is full reciprocity, which I do not think would be forthcoming in this case. It is a privilege to be allowed to come to this country and to be treated as a British citizen, a privilege which has considerable value. I suggest that, in any event, we might continue the arrangement by which, I understand, it is perfectly easy for South African citizens to become British citizens, if they so desire.
At this stage, I have no special comment to make on the question of the preferences. The Prime Minister is reserving any future changes there may be in that direction, but I have one or two comments to make about the High Commission Territories. I ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to say, when he replies, whether a decision has yet been reached about the type of British official who will, presumably, be in charge of these territories from the end of May onwards.
As is well known, at present, that duty falls upon the United Kingdom High Commissioner in South Africa, but it would not be a good plan for the future Ambassador—as he will be—to South Africa also to be responsible for the High Commission Territories. I would guess that the people of those territories would much prefer that the responsibility for looking after them should be transferred to the Colonial Office and, accordingly, presumably, a Governor would be appointed for the three territories.
We all understand the peculiar geographical situation of these territories and their dependence on South Africa—although one might say that South Africa depended on them as well. It is now even more important that the Government should press ahead with their economic development. It is now a year since the Morse Report was published, a Report produced by a Committee set up by the Government themselves and giving precise proposals about what could be done. I hope that we shall have a firm and swift decision by the Government on that matter.
There are certain other consequences to which I must refer. I very much hope that the Government will now take a different attitude at the United Nations when issues of race relations, and especially questions of South Africa's

attitude, come up. Whatever justification there may have been—and we have been very critical of it—for the past attitude of the British Government has now completely disappeared. There is no need for us to line up with the colonial Powers of Portugal and Belgium and put ourselves in a tiny minority——

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Shame.

Mr. Gaitskell: —in conflict with the United States Government and doing ourselves very considerable damage in the cold war.
Of particular importance is the special case of South-West Africa. The record of the Government in this matter is quite indefensible. I remind the House, not of everything that has happened over the last year or two, but simply of what has happened since last December. On 15th December, the House passed a Resolution, nemine contradicente, calling upon Her Majesty's Government to take action to ensure that the Government of South Africa carried out the solemn obligations which it undertook by accepting the mandate for South-West Africa, or surrendered it to the United Nations so that alternative trustee arrangements could be made.
Three days after that unanimous Resolution, the United Nations General Assembly passed, by 90 votes in favour to none against, a Resolution condemning the application of apartheid in South-West Africa. Britain was one of only three countries to abstain. On 20th December, last year, and again this year, hon. Friends of mine asked the Government what action they proposed to take to carry out the Resolution, and the Government made it plain that they proposed to do nothing.
On 3rd March, this year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) and some of my hon. Friends tabled a Motion calling on the British Government to give effect to that Resolution. Ten days later, the Trusteeship Committee of the General Assembly passed a Resolution calling on those members of the United Nations having close and continuous relations with the Government of South Africa to bring all their moral influence to bear on that Government. Nothing was done by the British Government, so far as we are aware. We were told, in extenuation of the failure


of the British Government to vote for the Resolution—they abstained as usual—that the British delegation had had no time to obtain instructions and could take no decision on the merits of the Resolution. But on 16th March, three days later, when the Resolution came up before the General Assembly, by which time instructions could surely have been obtained, Britain once again abstained.
That is not good enough. The last of this story is that on 21st March, India introduced a 23-nation Resolution in the Trusteeship Committee authorising the existing Assembly Committee on South-West Africa to investigate conditions in the territory, if necessary without South Africa's co-operation. The United States delegate has announced that his country will support this. What is to be the attitude of the British Government?
In looking at this momentous event we must all regret that, because of the clash between the policies of the South African Government and the principles on which the modern Commonwealth is based, the people of South Africa of all colours should no longer be with us in the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, for my part I believe that what has happened does give the Commonwealth a significance and a purpose without which it would not have survived for long.
But this will be so only if we ourselves accept quite clearly the change that has occurred. It is a change which rejects the old idea that this association, this grouping of nations, need have no special principles and its members no special affinities, except historical ties. It is a change which implies clearly the existence of common ideals—the common ideals of racial equality, political freedom, extending the right of self-government to the rest of the Commonwealth, non-aggression in international affairs, economic co-operation, and aid between nations.
These ideals may be imperfectly realised in many instances, but, nevertheless, they, and they alone, give the Commonwealth its real justification today, just as the extraordinary variety in terms of geography, race and religion of the Commonwealth provides a wonderful opportunity to advance these ideals in a practical form in the world as a whole.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition put the act which we are discussing today in its true perspective when he described it as a matter of great historical importance and as a turning point in Commonwealth history. In my view, that was a more accurate description than using the adjective "sad", which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister used.
South Africa's departure from the Commonwealth is an act of tragedy. No other word properly describes the fact of this old Commonwealth country leaving the Commonwealth. My reason for saying that is based on the concept of the Commonwealth, to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. I regard it as a tragedy because a number of the Prime Ministers—not my right hon. Friend—have misunderstood the nature of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is not, and never has been, an association of Governments. It is an association of peoples. That is why what we are discussing today is a very dangerous precedent.
The Commonwealth has driven South Africa out of the Commonwealth because it has criticised its Government. That is the reason why South Africa has left. I realise the difficulties of the situation. Not one of the Prime Ministers present at the Conference could agree with the methods of apartheid which have been used by the South African Government. I am sure that there is not a single right hon. or hon. Member who is not equally revolted by the system and methods of apartheid.
That is not the end of the story, because by this decision we have abandoned the men and women who have looked to the Commonwealth and to this country for their one hope for the future, for the easing of the rigours of apartheid.
I remember perfectly well the days in 1942 when I was in Gazala, in North Africa. My division had South African armoured cars in front of them patrolling no-man's land. On our right flank was the 1st South African Division, led by that grand General, Dan Pienaar. These two divisions, the 50th Northumbrians and the 1st South African, held the Eighth Army front against the Germans and the Italians. Men of the older generation,


like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, will never forget the courage of the South Africans at Delville Wood, in the First World War. Those men fought and died for freedom, yet by this act we have abandoned them to the rigours of apartheid and have shaken the foundations of the Commonwealth.
The greatest Commonwealth statesman I have ever met in my life was Field Marshal Jan Smuts. When he addressed the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on 25th November, 1943—there are still hon. Members in the House who remember that speech—he said this:
The British Empire and the British Commonwealth remain as one of the greatest things of the world and of history and nothing can touch that fact.
Last Wednesday, that was proved wrong. I cannot escape the conclusion that this issue—grave, complicated and difficult—was mishandled at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and that Her Majesty's Government, who acted as hosts of the Conference, with the Prime Minister as Chairman, must take their full share of the responsibility for that failure.
The Archbishop of Capetown, who is no friend of apartheid, has declared that the Bantu people wish to remain in the Commonwealth. Is there any doubt that the United Party and the Progressive Party, both of whom condemn the methods of apartheid, want to remain in the Commonwealth? Why was no attempt made to find out the views of the people of South Africa on the issue of membership of the Commonwealth? I appreciate that a referendum would not have been a possible method because of the system of franchise, but many right hon. and hon. Members know that other methods were suggested. Why was not a species of Gallup poll taken to find out the views in South Africa when there was still time? That is where I believe that we have failed.

Sir Peter Agnew: Does my right hon. Friend mean a Gallup poll undertaken by Her Majesty's Government, or one undertaken by the South African Government?

Mr. Turton: The Leader of the United Party, in a speech at the Royal Commonwealth Society, said that there

should have been some sampling of public opinion in South Africa. His speech was reported in all the newspapers. There are a certain number of people in South Africa who would have helped to conduct that poll to find out the opinion of both the Bantu and the whites of South Africa. If the Prime Minister and the Government had given sufficient encouragement, that poll could have been carried out and it would have had a tremendous effect.

Mr. J. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom should have carried on a Gallup poll in South Africa? Would he tolerate for one moment an attempt by other Governments to do that in this country?

Mr. Turton: I am so sorry, I seem not to have made myself clear. I was not suggesting that Her Majesty's Government in this country should carry out a poll in South Africa. I said that speeches had been made by prominent South African politicians, and that if Her Majesty's Government had used the influence they undoubtedly possess on the Prime Minister of South Africa I believe that a non-political body could have carried out a poll in South Africa, as the News Chronicle carried out polls here before it was murdered. That is my point, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will be able to say whether it was considered. It has been mentioned in correspondence in the newspapers.
The danger of this decision is that once we regard the Commonwealth as a Commonwealth of Governments and not of peoples, directly there comes into power, for however short or long a period, a Government that practise some form of racial discrimination that is obnoxious, we shall find it voted out, and the Commonwealth will shrink very rapidly.
So much for the past—let us now look to the future. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in one part of his speech, appeared to be trying to adopt a vengeful, malicious attitude, trying to hound South Africa still further. I think that he is the exception, and I regret very much that he used that part of his speech today and did not reserve it for another occasion——

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Disgraceful.

Mr. Turton: We should try to do what we can to repair the damage of last Wednesday, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will take two actions that I now want to suggest. I hope that when it is clear at any time that any future South African Government expresses a wish to rejoin the Commonwealth, Her Majesty's Government will welcome and sponsor that request—

Mr. Llywelyn Williams: On conditions.

Mr. Turton: On no conditions, because I believe it to be a Commonwealth of peoples, and if the people of South Africa at any time elect to power a Government that want South Africa to come back into the Commonwealth it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to welcome and to sponsor that request—

Mr. Ll. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman still say that he would not ask for the obvious condition of disavowal of apartheid in this connection?

Mr. Turton: I cannot think that the hon. Gentleman has followed my argument. I have said that I dislike apartheid as much as any other hon. Member here, but that I know very many hundreds of people in South Africa who share my views on apartheid, so I think that if a South African Government asked to come back, my right hon. Friend or his successor should welcome them, and sponsor that application—

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the question—

Mr. Turton: I understand that many hon. Members want to speak, and if I am continually interrupted I shall take longer than I wish.
How can we repair the damage? Let us recall the precedents of Eire and Burma. On the citizenship aspect, I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition. We can still make provisions for citizenship similar to those that have been made in Ireland. Secondly, on Commonwealth priority and trade, I understood the Prime Minister to say that these, being bilateral agreements, will be continued. I hope very much

that that is the construction, and not the construction placed on them by the Leader of the Opposition.
Far more important is the whole system of technical and consultative agencies at present working in the Commonwealth. I hope that we will try, as far as lies in the power of Great Britain, to allow South Africa to continue to participate in the consultation and technical associations. I agree that I must put in a proviso, "As far as lies in our power".
Hitherto, one of the dominant factors of the Commonwealth has been its flexibility, but last Wednesday's decision has quite clearly imported a certain degree of rigidity into the Commonwealth concept. That having happened, I think that the time has come for us to take advantage of that development, and I suggest that my right hon. Friend should consider whether we should not now seek to inaugurate a new relationship—that of external associate of the Commonwealth.
The Expanding Commonwealth Group has put up this suggestion of external relationships in a recent pamphlet "Expanding Obligation". We believe that at this time it is important not to sever the links between primary producing countries, but to strengthen them.
Quite clearly, it would mean that associated countries could not enjoy any of the rights of consultation that are the most important feature of Commonwealth relations, but it would also mean that that pattern of living with mutual economic benefit at which we try to aim through our system of multi-racial partnership could be sought by other methods by those countries which enjoyed that external relationship.
It is not a difficult change—we now have the examples of Eire and Burma, and we could have South Africa in the same sort of relationship. In the Horn of Africa we are facing the problem of Somaliland which, again, might be suitable for this form of external relationship; and I would also mention the Sudan. I think that those are the best ways by which we can try to repair the damage of the tragedy of last week.
I should like to turn for a moment to one other aspect of the problem. As some hon. Members may know, I was, for personal reasons, in Central Africa


last week, when the news broke about South Africa. It might be helpful if I told the House how that news was received in the Rhodesias and what was the general public opinion in the Federation, bearing in mind that I had previously been in the Federation as late as the end of January.
I would first remind the House that a great many of those now in North and South Rhodesia are men who have come quite recently from the Union because they have disliked working under apartheid. They have migrated north to try to live in the Federation, leaving their homes in South Africa because they felt that the Boer mentality of apartheid was more reminiscent of the nineteenth than of the twentieth century. They are professional men and tradesmen who have made that march.
Whereas, in January, I found dislike for the British Parliament most noticeable amongst the Right-wing politicians, the rest—both the Centre and the Left—were most anxious to co-operate, especially those in Southern Rhodesia, as I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations can testify from the experience of the most successful negotiations that he carried out in Salisbury.
I found last week that there had been a complete change of opinion. The abandonment of the 1958 Constitution in Northern Rhodesia and the realisation that in Nyasaland, as a result of changes made since the Lancaster House Conference, non-Commonwealth citizens are to be enfranchised while Nyasas working in Southern Rhodesia are being disfranchised, have led to a complete mistrust of the British Parliament and, in particular, of Her Majesty's Government. That mistrust could be found among all but a very small minority of Europeans, and among all moderate Africans.
During the last week what they regarded as the incompetent mishandling of the South African problem has accentuated that mistrust. They feel isolated, sandwiched between, on the north, the Congo, where Communist infiltration has led to the abandonment of law and order, and, on the south, the South African Government, who are now outside the Commonwealth, and whose racial discrimination they dislike. This is not

the view merely of politicians. My experiences of last week brought me into close contact with professional men who were completely outside politics. This is a crisis of confidence. They have no confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers' ability to determine the future of their country, or to save the multi-racial partnership in which they believe.
Let me try to explain their thoughts. They honestly believe that South Africa has been driven out of the Commonwealth in consequence of an unfortunate speech about the "wind of change". They consider that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has completely abandoned the proposals and pledges of his predecessors in office.

Mr. Ll. Williams: Is that the opinion of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)?

Mr. Turton: I have stated their view so that this House can understand how necessary it is for them to be reassured.
That is the change that I have found during the last six weeks. In these circumstances, if there is a referendum on the proposed changes in the Southern Rhodesian Constitution, they will vote against them. Had they a measure of confidence in Her Majesty's Government, I believe that today, in Southern Rhodesia, all politicians, except those on the extreme Right, would welcome the plan devised by my right hon. Friend. It appears to them to be modelled on what we call the Lennox-Boyd 1958 Constitution for Northern Rhodesia.
Time is not on our side. Let me warn the House. I believe that mistrust is leading to despair, and that despair is leading to thoughts of desperate methods. I beg the Government to reconsider their policy before they let loose a tide of violence which, in my view, would not only destroy the more than worthwhile experiment in multi-racial partnership, but would also shatter the Commonwealth that has been so shaken by the mishandling of the situation last week.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has given us the benefit of his views, not only on South Africa but on what he called "public opinion" in Rhodesia. I wonder how


many people in how many races he consulted. I am surprised that he should say that public opinion in Southern Rhodesia holds the views to which he has referred. I should like to know how many Africans he consulted, and whether he consulted just a certain group of people.
I must take him up on this extraordinary idea of a Gallup poll. According to him, a Gallup poll should be conducted; I do not know by whom—by the Victoria League, perhaps, which would go to South Africa for this purpose. Shall we have a poll conducted by the Soviet Union in Great Britain? There is no end to that kind of game once it is started. Surely if an expression of opinion is required, the best course is to have an election, and that presumably Dr. Verwoerd will have. In that way one can tell, at any rate, what white opinion is. One certainly cannot tell anything about black opinion from it.
Nor do I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on his other idea of an external associate of the Commonwealth. I did not altogether understand what he meant by that, because he limited it to primary producers so far as I could understand. Only primary producers were to be externally associated with the Commonwealth. If it were otherwise it might be worth doing, but I would not advocate that sort of thing simply as a method of getting South Africa back into the Commonwealth, which is what I think he had in mind.
The Prime Minister has said that we are sad today. I believe many people are sad. I can understand the point of view of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton who referred to the abandonment of British-born men and women—those who have defended us as their one hope in helping them to ease the rigours of apartheid. I am sorry for these men and women, of whom there are many, in South Africa. But do not let us imagine that every British-born man and woman in South Africa is against apartheid. I wish it were so, but I fear that it is not. In fact, I think that the fact that South Africa has left the Commonwealth and the fact that she may one day come back again will help those people who are fighting for liberalism and for the rights of Africans

in South Africa. Many of them will feel: "If we fight hard enough there is a chance that South Africa may have a more liberal policy, and if she has a more liberal policy there is a chance that she will come back again into the Commonwealth."
Many of them may now be much more concerned to help those few noble fighters for liberalism in South Africa. I hope they will be helped by many thousands who up till now have not taken a strong enough line, who have been content to let apartheid continue and have not taken any action to stop it.
I think that as well as sorrow many of us have a feeling of profound relief that South Africa is now out of the Commonwealth. It may be said that this is hypocritical, but one has felt some shame when people have said, "These acts are being carried out within your Commonwealth." We all know that we cannot influence South Africa. We know that she carries on her own policy, but there has always been that feeling of shame when people have said, "This is what is being done in a part of your Commonwealth." They will soon not be able to say that any longer.
It will make things much easier for us in the United Nations, and easier for Her Majesty's Government, too. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will, as my right hon. Friend said, avail themselves of the opportunity to take a line which they may often have wanted to take in the past but which they have not been able to take, simply because of South Africa being in the Commonwealth. It may be that Her Majesty's Government can now take a new line. They certainly will not have an excuse if they refrain from joining with other nations in protesting against the action of the South African Government in South West Africa.
I want to refer for a moment to the future and, in particular, to Dr. Verwoerd's speech on television. I do not know how many people listened to it. I listened to part of it myself, and I was fascinated by it. There is no doubt that Dr. Verwoerd is one of the most brilliant exponents on television in the world, probably even surpassing the Prime Minister, who is very good indeed. For all that, I think that those of us who have actually met Dr. Verwoerd, who have talked with


him and who have really come under his spell, know what is behind it. I spent two or three hours with him, and I have never met a more charming, old-world gentleman.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: When was this?

Mr. Dugdale: About eight or nine months ago. I felt while I was talking to him that he was not just charming with a superficial charm but that he was like a father confessor: someone with whom one could discuss all sorts of serious problems who would pat one on the head and give one friendly advice about everything. That is the kind of attitude which he produces on television very skilfully indeed. I had to keep reminding myself that this was the man responsible for Sharpeville, Langa and all the other shooting that has taken place in South Africa.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that Dr. Verwoerd was responsible for these outrages. The people responsible were a lot of brash and over-adventurous police.

Mr. Dugdale: The police are controlled by Dr. Verwoerd and, to the best of my knowledge they were not dismissed as a result of their action, though I may be wrong about that. It is a far better principle to blame the Prime Minister and the men at the top than to blame the police at the bottom. They were carrying out the kind of policy advocated by Dr. Verwoerd.
The point that I was making was the extreme difficulty of reconciling Dr. Verwoerd's personal charm with the policy of apartheid. One has to realise that he leads a sort of double life—a kind of Jekyll and Hyde life. One of the things which he said in his speech was that he hoped eventually to get the Prime Minister away from the rest of the Commonwealth. He talked of Mr. Macmillan's reluctance to go with the Asians, the Africans and all the rest. He said that in order to help Mr. Macmillan he had taken this wonderful action to make it easier for him, and he went on to hope that South Africa and the white countries would come together, and, somehow or other, one gathered that the black countries would

all be shed. There would be no more Mr. Nehru to worry him and no more Pakistanis, and certainly no more people from Africa.
Surely that is not the view that we take now. Surely that is not the view which the Prime Minister takes, let alone anyone else. It is certainly not the view that Mr. Diefenbaker takes. I pay tribute to him, and I do so particularly because only about five weeks ago I had a very long conversation with him in Ottowa in the course of which I came to the conclusion that he was going to recommend that South Africa should remain in the Commonwealth and that he would do all that he could to press for that. I realise now that I was quite wrong and that he had other views. It is remarkable the effect that they had. It appears that it was not by any means the black Prime Ministers alone, the Asians and Africans alone, who have been responsible for what happened. Mr. Diefenbaker seemed to play a very great part in this, and all of us on this side of the House are very grateful to him for what he did.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: Has the hon. Member any idea why Mr. Diefenbaker changed his mind so rapidly in the nine months between the two occasions on which he met him?

Mr. Dugdale: I said that I met Dr. Verwoerd about nine months ago. I met Mr. Diefenbaker nine weeks or less ago. I was talking about two quite different people—one called Dr. Verwoerd and the other Mr. Diefenbaker. I should like to quote from an article in the Observer last Sunday:
The policy of maintaining close and friendly relations between our Governments is undoubtedly the right one for Dr. Verwoerd, which should make it the wrong one for Mr. Macmillan.
In other words, the policy of damping things down and pretending that nothing has happened may be good for Dr. Verwoerd but is certainly not right, so said the Observer, for the Prime Minister, nor, I submit, is it right for hon. Members of this House.
I think that we have to take a totally different line. We in this House are proud to belong to the Commonwealth. Dr. Verwoerd is not proud. Surely that must make some difference to our attitude. What action should we take


in the future? I would have thought that the Commonwealth has certain rewards to offer to those people who are felt worthy of belonging to it. I should like to mention an article published in the Cape Times a few days ago:
The plain meaning of events in London is that we have been thrown out of the Commonwealth, out of the group of the most tolerant and most civilised, the most fair-minded peoples in the world. And we have been thrown out because of the policies of political nationalism, those narrow-minded, inflexible doctrines.
If one belongs to the most tolerant group of people in the world one expects to get some reward. If one breaks away from it, it may be that one does not expect to get quite the same rewards. I do not want to go into great detail of what might be done now. I quite appreciate the Prime Ministers desire to go slowly on this and not to rush into things immediately. I personally do not believe that there is a case for a national boycott today, though I believe that there is a case for personal boycott. I think, too, that it is quite a different matter when we say that South Africa, with whose policies we radically disagree, and who has deliberately broken away from the Commonwealth, should get exactly the same preference as the West Indies, Australia and other members of the Commonwealth. That seems to me to be quite wrong. I doubt whether they are worthy, if one likes to put it that way, to get the same preference as India, Pakistan and other Commonwealth countries. Why should they get better treatment than France, Belgium and Scandinavia and many other foreign countries. South Africa has elected to become a foreign country and should be treated as a foreign country in that respect.
I shall not go into details about citizenship, which is an extremely complicated matter. I do not think that we have to rush into it too quickly. I would say that we have to be very careful in talking about a parallel with the Irish situation. It is very different here, where a large number of people in South Africa would not be given the same rights, the same passports and the same privileges of travel as are given to the white population. In Ireland, so far as I know, all Irishmen get all rights exactly equal, but the same is not true

in South Africa. We have to be very careful to see that if special rights are given they are given to people of all races, and I am doubtful if South Africa will do this.

Mr. Osborne: Would the right hon. Gentleman apply the same logic to Ghana, where opposition members are locked up merely because they are loyal members of Her Majesty's Opposition?

Mr. Dugdale: It is a form of dictatorship. Though I profoundly disagree with the policy of Ghana in this respect, it is a very different thing from the policy of South Africa and of apartheid, which is directed against a whole race. I believe that South Africa cannot enjoy all the privileges of the Commonwealth club without paying the dues which are paid by all members of the club. It is wrong that she should, and I consider that we must be very careful to see that she does not.
I turn now to a subject touched on by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the position of the High Commission Territories. For some time now, many of us have been of opinion that it is wrong that there should be one man in charge of the High Commission Territories and in charge of relations with South Africa. We have felt in the past that it was wrong that he should have a double allegiance, but now, undoubtedly, the position must change. There will be an Ambassador under the Foreign Office accredited to the Union of South Africa, and there must be a man in charge in the territories who quite plainly will not be in the Foreign Office. My own personal view is that he should be in the Colonial Office. I think that the logical thing is for the territories to come under the Colonial Office rather than under the Commonwealth Relations Office. If the peoples of the territories object, I should not press that, although I believe that, from their point of view, it would be better if the territories did come under the Colonial Office. I hope that this will be done, because the Colonial Office, after all, is used to dealing with their kind of problems and the Commonwealth Relations Office is not. It is purely a coincidence that the present arrangement under the Commonwealth Relations Office should have been made.
The task of the man who is sent to govern the territories will be a very hard one indeed. The territories are poor and backward and undoubtedly have not been developed as they should have been either by the Government opposite or, if I may say so in all honesty, by our own side. I do not think that either party in the past has really paid sufficient attention to them or has developed them enough. Certainly, they have not been developed enough during recent years, and there remains a great deal to be done. As I say, the task will be hard, but it will be a very rewarding one. I hope that whoever performs it will put as much energy into the development of the territories, in education, social services, and the whole economic life of the territories, as has been put by this country into some of the larger Colonies in the past.
We are now going down a new road. It is a long road, and a difficult road, but at the end we shall, I hope, find a South Africa which is reborn and found worthy once again to enter the Commonwealth.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I regard what happened last week as a tragedy. I, too, hope that it will not be a precedent for any other member of the Commonwealth. I am particularly sad about it because I spent a very happy ten days in the Union only about six weeks ago, where, to a certain extent to my surprise, I found everybody, from the Speaker of the House of Assembly downwards, absolutely friendly and courteous. I confess that I should not have been surprised if I had met some hostility in view of some of the things which had been said in this country during recent years about the Union.
As the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) said, some people of British descent are not opposed to apartheid. There are, I think, two reasons for this. One is the reason I have just mentioned, the attitude of some Members of the House in the way they have attacked South Africa in past years. Also, I think, they are not convinced that racial partnership can work. It is my hope that in the years ahead we shall convince them that it can and does work, so that they will change their attitude in

this respect and, eventually, South Africa will come back into the Commonwealth.
I turn now to the trade side of the tragedy. I am very glad indeed that the agreement which governs our trade relations with the Union of South Africa, the one which has brought about the present system of Commonwealth Preference, is not affected by what has happened. It is one of the Ottawa Agreements which goes on indefinitely until terminated by six months' notice on either side. I hope that it will remain the firm intention of Her Majesty's Government that, as far as we are concerned, no action will be taken to terminate that agreement.
It is not the only agreement of its kind. At the time of the Ottawa Conference, South Africa made similar agreements with Canada, New Zealand and Eire, and since then she has, I think, made similar agreements with Australia and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I am sure that many of those agreements will follow the fate, whether good or bad, which may be given to our agreement with the Union, and this is why I hope that we shall maintain the present agreement which we have.
As I understand the position, Commonwealth Preference is enjoyed by South Africa on about 50 per cent. of her exports to this country, excluding gold. It has always been one of the puzzles of our trade relations that gold should be regarded as something so secret that no figures are ever given of imports or exports to and from this country in our relations with any other country. Only global figures for the year are given, so we cannot know what the exports of gold to this country from South Africa are. Of the rest of her exports, 50 per cent. enjoy Commonwealth Preference, although some of the preferences are undoubtedly small. In the other direction, about 20 per cent. of our exports to South Africa enjoy Commonwealth Preferences in that country, and this is something which, I hope, we shall always remember.
The distribution of South Africa's trade results in about one-third of her total imports coming from the United Kingdom and 11 per cent. from other Commonwealth countries. In 1958, we took no less than 30 per cent. of her exports and other Commonwealth countries took 20 per cent. This shows what


an important part is played, first, by Commonwealth Preference and, secondly, by Commonwealth sentiment and feeling for fellow-countrymen. Commonwealth trade plays a great part in the trade relations of the Union. We are South Africa's best customer, and she was our fifth best customer in 1960 after the United States, Australia, Canada and Western Germany. Bearing in mind that of the total population of 13 million, or whatever it is, of all races in the Union only about 700,000 voted in favour of a republic, it is, in my view, unthinkable that we should treat South Africa and, therefore, all those people any less well than we have been treating her in the past. I very much hope that the present arrangement will be continued.
Last year, we bought £29 million worth of fruit from the Union, £6 million worth of sugar and £1 million worth of wine. I interpose that there is another problem in regard to sugar created by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. While we maintain, as I hope we shall maintain, the Commonwealth Preference which we grant to sugar from South Africa and Australia, this is different from the arrangement in regard to the Colonial Territories.
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can give us any information about the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. Am I right in thinking that the Agreement as it is at the moment lasts for about six years ahead, the quota being agreed every year for that period ahead, so that nothing can happen for about six years with regard to South Africa? Also, we should bear in mind that sugar in South Africa is grown almost entirely in Natal, and that the South African sugar quota under the Commonwealth Agreement, as I understand it, includes also the sugar quota of Swaziland, which, presumably, we should wish to maintain.
There is preference on most of the fruit, the oranges, the apples and the canned fruit, coming from South Africa. Last year, South Africa was our largest supplier of canned fruit, with £11½ million worth, and three-quarters of her exports of canned fruit come to this country.
As I said, we bought £1 million worth of South African wine last year. That is about 60 per cent. of her total exports.

Other exports of South African wine go to Canada, New Zealand, West Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and the Far East. Thanks to the Common Market, there is the danger of a drop in South African exports of wine to countries like the Netherlands and Germany. I understand that the South African wine industry employs from 120,000 to 130,000 people, and that includes, not only grapes for wine and the processing of it, but table grapes and raisins as well. Of course, most of those people are Africans.
Exactly a hundred years ago we ruined the South African wine industry by abandoning Commonwealth Preference and introducing free trade in wine. Imports of wine into this country, which at that time, 1861, amounted to 600,000 gallons fell to as little as 10,000 gallons about thirty years later. It was not until 1925, when we restored the preference, that trade recovered, and it has gradually grown since to its present level. I hope that there will be no question of our repeating the tragedy of a hundred years ago and ruining an industry in which there is a great deal of capital and which employs a large number of Africans who, I am sure, every hon. Member wishes to help.
We must also remember our own exports, of which, as I said, about 20 per cent. receive some form of Commonwealth Preference in the Union. I know that we have done quite well in the export of cars, for example, which do not receive any Commonwealth preference. Most electrical machinery, in particular, gets the benefit of Commonwealth Preference in the Union. We would be very unwise, from our own point of view, quite apart from the much greater damage that we would do to the Union, if we abandoned a system which benefits our own exports.
Only six weeks ago I found that there is a great deal of good feeling in the Union towards this country. It comes from people of all races and parties. They are very pro-British in outlook in many ways. I am sure that every hon. Member will agree that South Africa is a go-ahead country. It is full of large resources. It is one of the biggest gold and uranium producers in the world. Its industry is developing on as extensive lines as those of other leading Commonwealth countries. We often hear of firms


in our country and other European countries setting up subsidiaries in Commonwealth countries and other underdeveloped countries.
In South Africa, I came across an example of this working the other way. A South African firm which manufactures spin-drier washing machines is setting up a subsidiary company to construct an assembly plant in Holland. That shows the go-ahead nature of South African industry. It is partly due to the quality and cheapness of South African steel.
In conclusion, I reiterate the hope that, whatever may happen in future, there will be no question of our abandoning the Commonwealth Preference system, bearing in mind that, whatever may be the view of the majority of people who voted for a republic, we do not know the views of the minority who voted against it and of the vast majority who had no vote at all about the question of South Africa's continued Commonwealth membership. We should do them immense harm if we abandoned this system, and, therefore, I hope that it will continue and that we will set an example to the rest of the Commonwealth by continuing it.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: The hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) has dealt with a very important and special aspect of our relations with South Africa which I hope will be tackled with common sense. I will not go into detail about it. I think that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition expressed the view which most of us on this side take. We do not wish to discuss with any spirit of vindictiveness the great country which has left the Commonwealth. On the other hand, we do not want South Africa to feel that she has exactly the same rights and privileges as if she were still in the Commonwealth. Apart from saying that, I should not like to attempt to go into the questions which the hon. Member raised.
The main current of the debate so far has shown that we are perhaps ready to accept a practical solution of the problem. What are really worrying the House, I think, are the problems of ethics and the nature of the Commonwealth.

Preceding speeches have, for the most part, followed that theme, and so will mine.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) ran into trouble with my hon. Friends and some of his own hon. Friends at one stage. He began his speech with the statement of a dilemma which I think has struck hon. Members on this side forcibly, too. This was not a happy decision to take, but it is still less easy to feel that we are leaving out of our Commonwealth not only the Government which oppresses the black people of South Africa but the black people themselves.
The right hon. Gentleman found rather too easy a solution to that dilemma, but I hope that neither he nor any other hon. Member will feel that those of us who approve of the severance of the connection between South Africa and the Commonwealth are happy that the African people of South Africa—the voteless, the people in the segregated races—are also outside our family.
Apartheid was the prime mover in this matter. There is no doubt that this question fell into a distinct and individual class. It is no use talking as if, having dealt with this particular fault in the case of South Africa, we are likely to use it as a precedent for dealing with faults on a smaller scale in other countries. I do not think that that is likely to happen.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that South Africa seems to be adhering to quite different standards from ours. It is not that she is falling below the standards that we are trying to reach but that she is not trying to reach our standards on a massive question, the question of racial discrimination, which touches the conscience of our time more strongly than it did in the earlier history of our Commonwealth on a great number of other questions.
Apartheid has so far been looked upon by the Commonwealth members as a matter for the domestic jurisdiction of South Africa. It has been a bit too explosive to remain in that position, and the Prime Minister carefully pointed out that this matter was discussed after a waiver of rights by the South African


Prime Minister. But still, a generation ago, this sort of thing would hardly have been possible. In the Commonwealth we would have felt that a matter of domestic jurisdiction must not be discussed. Dr. Verwoerd thinks that it was wrong to take it up, although he agreed to have it discussed. I do not think it will be possible to regard it as anything but a precedent.
It seems to me that this is a turning point in the Commonwealth. It seems to me that here we have a very considerable break with the past. One phrase which the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton used was about inflexibility, when he said that the Commonwealth was becoming more inflexible. It is not a phrase that I should like to use, and not an idea that I should like to connect with the Commonwealth, but I think that to a very small extent he may perhaps be right. The Commonwealth was, perhaps, too flexible in matters of that kind, which have involved deep principle in the past. It may well be true in the future that we shall not be able in the Commonwealth to avoid an enormous question of principle like this on the simple ground that it falls within the domestic jurisdiction of one member.
This seems to me to be one tremendous change in the nature of the Commonwealth and in the practice of the Commonwealth, which itself springs from a change in the nature of the association that we now wish to be. There is another very considerable effect involved in this. Dr. Verwoerd himself has stressed that the Commonwealth has changed since 1960—since last year. He says that it is beginning to disintegrate, changing in the wrong direction. The Sunday Times tells us that the Commonwealth has been diminished. I do not agree with that; I think exactly the opposite, but there is no doubt that a change has taken place.
I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition stressed the importance of considering this severance of relations in the light not only of its effects on South Africa but of its effect on the Commonwealth as a Commonwealth. I see two very considerable changes in Commonwealth practice and principle. One is that we have departed in this tremendously important matter from a readiness to consider it simply as a matter of domestic

jurisdiction. The other is that we have added what we might call a new principle of Commonwealth in our generation in the period since the First World War. The Commonwealth has gone through a good many changes. It has been changing fast, but nearly all changes have been of structure and status. They are the changes expressed by the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the Statute of Westminster of 1931. They have been changes adding to the individual importance of members, changes which have been concerned with the place of individual members in the association. There has been a process of gradual movement towards independence.
We now have, it seems to me, a change of a completely different order. We are now beginning to make changes in the matter of principle. So far, if I have been reading Commonwealth history aright, the only principle that has been found unanimously to have been continuously working throughout the history of the Commonwealth has been the principle of liberty. That has led to independence and the changes we have seen in the last few decades. but now we have added to that principle the important principal of racial tolerance—the principle of a multi-racial Commonwealth.
Here, we have two tremendously strong and, I think, tremendously creative principles at work in the Commonwealth. The principle of liberty has in the past been equally creative. I believe that in the next generation, or in the next generation or two, the principle of nondiscrimination as between races is likely to be just as creative. I do not, therefore, feel that the Commonwealth has been diminished, as we are told by the editorial writer in the Sunday Times. I feel rather that it has taken a stand on another principle which is likely to lead the Commonwealth to further growth and further influence, and this just at a time when the critics were beginning to ask, "What is the Commonwealth? How much of the Commonwealth is there left? What does the Commonwealth stand for?" We have always stood for the principle of liberty and for the working out of that principle through political institutions. The Commonwealth now stands absolutely unmistakably and four square on the principle of nondiscrimination as between races, and,


therefore, we have a Commonwealth with a meaning.
The Times used an interesting phrase about it—"the newly shaping Commonwealth". In the last few decades, historians of the Commonwealth have gone in for all sorts of interesting names—the Third British Empire, the Second Commonwealth, and that kind of thing. I do not know what we may call this stage, but it seems to me that this change that we are now in process of witnessing is a change on the grounds very largely of ideology, and partly on the grounds of accepting as a matter of common interest what a generation ago would have been accepted simply as a matter of internal interest. This change is perhaps just as great as the kind of change initiated in the years just after the First World War.
It has its dangers, of course. It means that the Commonwealth is breaking into the field of ideology, to use a rather less attractive term for what we would otherwise mean by the word "principle", but the principle of liberty has its dangers, too. When we talked of giving independence to members of the Commonwealth or of the Empire in the old days, there were plenty of critics who said that once we did that they would grow up and leave the house, and there would be no Commonwealth left. Everything has its dangers, but I think the likelihood is that our taking our stand on this principle today will be advantageous rather than dangerous.
I do not want to try to follow up the special problems that arise in connection with South Africa itself. I think most of them have been raised in the course of the debate, such as the question of nationality, which is a very difficult one to deal with, and the question of the Protectorates, on which I would only echo what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, that it seems to me that instead of a High Commissioner covering all three territories, a situation which arose only because of their special relationship with South Africa, the sensible thing is to make them separate territories each under a Governor, as with those territories which are at present under the Colonial Office.
There is also the question of our attitude to the United Nations, the question of defence agreements, and the special

question which the hon. Member for Wembley, South raised of our trade relations. All these have to be dealt with, and I feel that the two right hon. Gentlemen who opened the debate have taken the right kind of attitude about these groups of questions. I am inclined to agree with the Prime Minister that there is a case for a standstill on a number of them, and certainly a number of them are exceedingly complex, and we must try, so far as it is a matter of our decision, to temper the exigencies of sending a country out of the Commonwealth—which is what we have done, although the form was that of withdrawal—with ordinary decency and friendliness and dislike or unreadiness to put into effect anything which could be considered as being vindictive or deliberately unpleasant.

8.20 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In about 1950, at the height of the cold war, the word "democracy" was used equally by the two protagonists. To us, whatever it may have meant to the Russians, their use of it connoted blood and steel and concrete, whereas our own use of the word, with all sweetness and light, was illustrated by "The Right Road for Britain", "The Future belongs to You", or whatever the phraseology was, veritable lambs in springtime. "Democracy" was then a ju-ju word and "apartheid" is a ju-ju word today.
Whatever I may say about developments in South Africa, I want hon. Members, if they will be so good, not to apply blood and sweat and tears, their imagination running riot after Sharpeville, necessarily to that word when I use it in a sense which is applicable to the investment of money in particular areas of separate development. "Apartheid" is a word that is now torn apart across the world and between the political parties. It is a great pity that that is so.
I was very surprised by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this evening. I had not realised that he felt so deeply about developments in South Africa. He used phraseology which is new for the Government. After this break with South Africa, he seems to have thought it right to be even more trenchant in his criticism of the politics and philosophy of that great country than he has ever been in the past, either in


this House, at party conferences, in the United Nations or, so far as I know, anywhere else.
I was very surprised and rather shocked by the strength of the Prime Minister's speech this evening. It was very different from the speech which he delivered a year or so ago, when he went to South Africa, the famous "wind of change" speech. It was the "wind of change" speech which began the unpleasant process from which we have recently suffered.
The Government have mishandled this great issue on several counts. First, they have led the world to believe that there was great harm even in the positive sides of what the South African Government are attempting. Secondly, they have done nothing positive to assist South Africa at the bar of public opinion all over the world. Thirdly, they have mishandled it through not appreciating that the issue of continuance of the Commonwealth should be presented in such a way as to help the South Africans.
The Prime Minister undoubtedly began this when he used the words in the "wind of change" speech. The wide context in which he spoke and the phraseology he used all pointed to the fact that he was beginning a process of condemnation of South Africa. He used certain words, however, notably the phrase about "Mind your own business, but mind how it affects my business, too"—I think that that is the exact form of the words he used—which could be taken from then on by members of the Commonwealth as an excuse and reason and an endorsement of the desire to indulge in the process of destructive mutual criticism.
Hitherto, the Commonwealth had never attempted anything of the kind. It has been held together by a belief that it should stand back to back, facing the world outwards, defending itself, increasing its power and influence and keeping its internal processes as quietly arranged and quietly discussed as possible. Now, unfortunately, members of the Commonwealth have turned right about to face each other and are criticising each other with their backs to the rest of the world. I do not know how long an institution that behaves like that can possibly continue. My first charge, therefore, is that the process of disintegration

started with the ill-fated tour by the Prime Minister to Africa last year.
Secondly, I do not think that the Government have done all that they should to help South Africa explain at the bar of public opinion the positive sides of apartheid—and there are positive sides of apartheid which can be defended. We have only to look at the behaviour of our own country and other countries of the Commonwealth to see that there are many aspects of the beneficial side of separate development inside South Africa which are applicable to us, as well, and to other members of the Commonwealth.
We are very lucky that our black Colonies are 5,000 or 10,000 miles away. There are some black Colonies from which labour in this country is willingly recruited. Now, we are beginning to wonder whether that should continue. We are not faced with anything like the same problem as faces South Africa, with enormous forces of primitive Bantu virtually across a few hundred miles of arid country, swelling into the centres of civilisation on the enticement of a high standard of living. We are not faced with those things in this country. There are people in this country who think that we may be faced with them unless we do something to stop immigration from the Caribbean.
There is a certain hypocrisy in the attitude of Britain towards these problems, based on an unfortunate situation in which propaganda has been sedulously built up and engineered for highly-charged political reasons. I think that the Government have been in a position throughout in which they could have groped for the truth, cast aside the mischievous propaganda that was created by others and found out in their heart whether what they were doing themselves and what they were allowing other countries of the Commonwealth and Empire to do was not in some way the same sort of thing as South Africa is compelled to do.
I say, therefore, that the Government have neglected their duty of going out and finding the truth and helping their great ally in two world wars and their partner in the Commonwealth to defend herself.
Thirdly, the Government have not arranged the mechanics of the situation very intelligently. South Africa's case is not governed by precedent. It is the only member of the Commonwealth


which is technically put out of that position by a change of status and wishes to return to it. The other members, India, Pakistan, Ceylon were all previously parts of the India Office or the Colonial Office system, were given their independence, and were, therefore, put in the position of asking for the first time whether they might be members of the Commonwealth.
South Africa was an old-established—the fourth established—member of the Commonwealth. She changed her status, and the Government, I think stupidly, applied those precedents to her and allowed her to go out and then make her application to return. We all know it is much easier if one is a member of a club to remain in it. It needs a general resolution of the committee, if not a special general meeting of members, to turn one out; but if one is outside the club, and one is asking for admission, one black ball excludes, and that is what has happened this time. If the Government had handled the situation so that it would have been necessary to amass a considerable number of Commonwealth members to force South Africa out of the club, when everybody recognised that she was already in, I do not think we should have had the situation we have today.
I want to speak briefly in this short debate, because there are many Members who desire to address the House. I do not understand the philosophy of the Prime Minister in the question of Africa. It seems to me that he is taking a wholly cold war view of the situation, the view that unless we liberate with the greatest possible speed the maximum number of countries in Africa we shall not get sufficient numbers of allies on our side to succeed in the cold war. He seems to me to be forcing the pace of advance for highly ideological, international reasons.
I think that his philosophy, if I am right about it, ought to be defended on the proper occasion. It may be true. On the other hand, we are seeing now that if we do this—the Congo is a magnificent example of it—we perpetuate the sort of chaos in which the seeds of Communism themselves grow and we do ourselves ultimate mischief. The Prime Minister is taking the bird's eye view of

Africa. He ought to be taking the worm's eye view.
Here is the wretched African struggling, as I said in the debate in the House in February, to draw himself out of the vast areas of square miles of red clay in which his feet are firmly placed; he has eyes on a future of prosperity and of high civilisation. But he cannot get out of the mud, cannot put pull himself up by his own boot straps. It needs the British element in Africa to do that, to lift him to higher spheres. And that is why any precipitate policy which engineers the partial or the complete withdrawal of British communities, of Portuguese, French, Belgians, communities of people representing Western Europe and the high standards of civilisation which they have achieved there, is such a fundamental error—a fundamental error.
We ought to be supporting the British element in South Africa. We ought to be supporting the British element in Central Africa. We ought to be aware of the dangers of the precipitate transfer of our colonial system in East Africa to African control; because our people there are the engineers of high standards of life, they are the means of communication between the great riches of this country and the highly civilised parts of Europe and the bogs and swamps of that vast territory of Africa. If we frighten them out of the picture, as we are seeing every day in Kenya and Rhodesia, if we frighten the British economy out of the country, we do ultimate harm to the African people. That is why the boycott, which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition glories in having help to impose upon the people of South Africa, was a monstrous mistake.
About six months ago I was privileged to meet twenty or thirty leaders of the coloured community in Capetown. After a very happy and successful interview, the leader on their behalf, in front of the rest of them, addressed me in these words, "Will you kindly go back to your country and tell the leaders of the Labour Opposition in your Parliament that their advocacy of the boycott has done us the greatest mischief and harm?" I take the greatest pleasure in delivering the message.
Where is this great Commonwealth of ours going from here? We are told by Lord Hailsham, that those on the Right and Left of politics have lost faith in


contemporary Britain. What is contemporary Britain in the eyes of the Lord President of the Council?
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said vaguely tonight that this new Commonwealth into which we are moving enshrines idealism. What is the idealism which it enshrines? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition put together certain words and phrases. They did not mean very much, but he tried to show that there was some new meaning and purpose to the post-catastrophe Commonwealth which we have inherited. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) said that an aspect of multi-racialism was the thing to try for. Multi-racialism is evidenced all over the world. One does not find that outside the Commonwealth it is more in question than inside.
I should like to know, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will tell us, what the Commonwealth now enshrines—not Royalty or loyalty, not democracy, not history, not defence, although I am glad to say that the defence treaties with South Africa are to be maintained. In what do we differ now from the shambles that is the United Nations? If we do not differ from the shambles of the United Nations, what is the purpose of keeping this Commonwealth alive?
A lifeline must be flung to South Africa in this situation. What can we do to help her? The suggestion was made opposite that we should now take action even more inimical to her interests than we have inadvertently taken in the last few days, over the High Commission Territories. I cannot believe that it would not be considered by South Africa to be extremely provocative to bring these High Commission Territories back under the Colonial Office. In the eyes of South and Central Africans the Colonial Office is not at the moment the finest of institutions in the world. I do not believe that South Africans would regard that as a friendly gesture.
Can we not do something more imaginative? The challenge which Dr. Verwoerd puts out is that he is to spend all that South Africa is able to afford—I think that it is £15 million a year,

rising to £50 million in time—to establish industries in areas where the Bantu is already congregated and where he can learn the arts of self-government for himself.
What are we doing in Swaziland, Basutoland and Bechuanaland? We are pouring money into those territories. Perhaps not enough; perhaps not as much as £15 million a year, which is what Dr. Verwoerd is aiming at doing. Are we not bringing them up to self-government in the end? We have a High Commissioner there at the present time. Cannot these great situations be married in some form? Can we not retain control over those three territories while inviting Dr. Verwoerd to prove his worth in them? Let us see what a challenge of that kind, thrown out to him, would result in. Something must be done to aid South Africa in her plight.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The noble Lord would throw them the High Commission Territories.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I say nothing of the kind. I say that we should retain absolute control over them, but invite South African money into them, to provide industrialisation and commercial growth towards the ultimate self-government which is the positive philosophy of Dr. Verwoerd, and see how he responds.
I have finished. I am grieved by the terrible catastrophe that has overtaken the Commonwealth. I think that Her Majesty's Government are very largely to blame for it, and I hope that hence-forth every effort will be made to create a world instrument which enshrines the British way of life, the British way and purpose, the ethos of our society, and which can help to keep the violent antagonisms of the world, in Communist Russia and the United States of America, in touch with each other, and maintain peace.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) speaks as though this country had inflicted some appalling injustice on South Africa. He speaks as though very little blame was attaching to South Africa; that it is we who should have guilty consciences, and that it is up to us to


make some amends to this wronged Government. I have great respect for the noble Lord, and it would be disrespectful to him not to make it quite clear that I hold an exactly opposite opinion.
It is quite true that many South African formations fought on our side in the last war, but it is not by any means so clear that all the members of the South African Government were wholeheartedly in favour of this country in that war. I share the hon. Member's views about the speeches of Members of the Government. I, too, feel that our Government have frequently said one thing and done another. I, too, feel that they have often used their speeches not to instruct people in the realities of the situation but to conceal them. But when the noble Lord goes on from that to say that the Commonwealth should be an association of people who stand back to back, looking outwards upon a hostile world and not taking any account of what they themselves are doing, I think that he is wrong.
Let the noble Lord put himself in this position. Let him consider how he would feel if the situation were the other way round. Let us suppose that there was a Commonwealth country in which a very large white population was oppressed by a small black population. Would he say that it was no concern of other white people in other parts of the Commonwealth? Would he say that it was an internal matter of the country concerned? I doubt whether he would take that view. I know him much too well. He would have views to express, and he would think it a proper matter upon which to express them.
It is a tragedy for those people in South Africa who dislike apartheid and want to remain in the Commonwealth that these events have happened. I am not so clear that Dr. Verwoerd thinks it a tragedy. Let us face the alternative. Let us suppose that the Government had skated over the difficulties and that South Africa was to remain in the Commonwealth. To me that could only mean one of two things; either that this trouble would break out again—because I do not believe that Ghana and other Commonwealth countries whose people are of a different colour could have let the matter rest—or that the Common-

wealth was of very little importance to anyone; so little importance, in fact, that they did not feel it worth making any fuss about.
The Prime Minister said that he was in favour of keeping South Africa in the Commonwealth. He said that he would rather put out the hand of friendship than pass by. But for years we have attempted to hold out the hand of friendship to South Africa. We have attempted to explain to them that we were opposed to their policies but nevertheless hoped to influence them and to retain them inside the Commonwealth.
This seems to be the crux of this matter. We have tried keeping them in the Commonwealth. We have tried argument and, we have tried influence, but it has not had the slightest effect on the South African Government. I think it very doubtful now whether this South African Government want to come back into the Commonwealth, or ever will. There are people, black and white, in South Africa who will want to come back, but I do not believe that Dr. Verwoerd has any intention of modifying the principle of apartheid and I fear that the countries will drift apart.
When he spoke of apartheid, the noble Lord said that we must not attribute to him the views of Dr. Verwoerd. The noble Lord said that he was talking about apartheid in the sense that there might have to be different development of the races. There is a phrase used by the Red Queen that "Words mean what I want them to mean."

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: It was Humpty-Dumpty.

Mr. Grimond: I am rather sorry that it was Humpty-Dumpty—the noble Lord is much more like the Red Queen.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The Red Queen ran so fast that she stayed in the same place, like the Leader of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Grimond: Some people in the Conservative Party are moving fast in the wrong direction, and the noble Lord is one of those at the head of them.
Dr. Verwoerd, like the noble Lord, tried to leave the impression that apartheid is a reasonable matter, a question of different development. All are equal,


but they are not to be mixed up. We know that it is not like that, and it is no good anyone pretending that it is. To begin with, the white man in South Africa cannot get on without the black man. He cannot run his business and his industry. It is not a question of keeping the races apart. They are inextricably mixed up. Apartheid means the superiority of one race and the oppression of one race by another. It is wholly untenable and it is wholly impossible to say that it has no international repercussions.
Furthermore, Dr. Verwoerd has made it plain that it is not a passing phase which, to do him justice, was the ground on which the noble Lord would defend it. It is for Dr. Verwoerd a permanent principle of State. This is wholly different from the aberrations and troubles in other parts of the Commonwealth. Another thing that became clear from the discussions at the Conference is that not only is Dr. Verwoerd adamant on the principle of racial discrimination, but he has no intention of working things out together as one Commonwealth country making some compromise with others.
This is certainly the moment for taking a long look at where the Commonwealth now stands. It is often said that the Commonwealth is an illusion, that it has no reality and no strength. The noble Lord asked what principle, what ideal, what foundation is behind the Commonwealth. It is quite possible, I agree, that the Commonwealth might actually become a stumbling block. I think that at the time of Suez, from the point of view of the Government, the Commonwealth was a handicap. It is very likely that the Commonwealth may be made an excuse for not reaching any reasonable agreement with Europe. It means strains on our economy and on our defence.
We should not take it as a matter of course that any sort of Commonwealth is worth having. We must decide what the Commonwealth is about. Many similes are used, which I dislike. I dislike the expression "Commonwealth Club". It makes me think of old gentlemen smoking cigars and sitting on rather worn-out leather armchairs. I dislike the description of the Common-

wealth as a "family", as if we were an elderly relation and on Father's Day the children came back to pay us compliments. I dislike the vague mystique and the ideals to which the noble Lord referred. They represent an exclusiveness which does not correspond to realities.
I should like the Commonwealth to stand for two things, and one of them is simply racial equality. I believe that the relationship of the black and white races is one of the two or three most important questions of our time. I believe it is vital to the Western world. I believe it is an extremely difficult question for the Americans to deal with considering what goes on in their own country. I believe Britain and her Commonwealth could make an immense contribution simply on this subject. Secondly, I believe the Commonwealth should be an example to the rest of the world in the sort of way in which international affairs should be carried out, in co-operation, giving a little sovereignty here and there and working out practical policies about practical matters.
On the first question of racial equality I say again what has been said before. Britain was defeated at the Prime Ministers' Conference, but she now has a chance to redeem herself at the United Nations by voting according to her conscience. She has a chance to redeem herself on the mandate of South West Africa by it being possible to remove it from South Africa.
I agree with the noble Lord that Dr. Verwoerd has a perfectly good point against us in that he does more for black Africans than we do. We should make that good. The Morse Committee reported £10 million would go a long way towards setting the Protectorates on their legs. Swaziland, I think, is fairly well off with C.D.C. assistance, and private enterprise, which are doing a good job, but Basutoland and Bechuanaland need far more help. I am told that £7 million down plus £½ million for five years would restore them to health. That should be a first call on the Government and I gladly join with the noble Lord in making it.
Another thing we should do, whatever form the government of the Protectorates takes, is to remove it out of South Africa. I have long felt that the High


Commission should be taken out of South Africa and, despite the good job which Sir John Maud does, his office should be in the Protectorates.
On practical co-operation for practical problems, I do not want to go into detail in this debate, but I believe that the Overseas Civil Service is the sort of thing we should work for. I believe that practical work should be done on the question of race relations and the sort of government we can recommend to countries which have a multi-racial problem. I agree that it is not for us to set up as experts on multi-racialism. We do not suffer from it, but we have found the solution, and I believe the Commonwealth as a whole should by its collective wisdom together reach a conclusion. The Commonwealth countries have got to co-operate together and not simply look to Britain.
I cannot say that I regard this as an unmitigated tragedy. I think it better that South Africa should have withdrawn than that she should have remained in or have been expelled. If we are to turn it to full advantage we cannot go back to the old idea that the Commonwealth is an agreeable cosy little gathering of a family. We have to face up to two things. First, working multi-racialism, and, secondly, working co-operation on practical subjects.

8.54 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: As a background to the contribution I hope to make to the debate I may perhaps say that I have a small, but not very recent, knowledge of South Africa and an interest in its affairs. I have been there twice, once as a private Member in 1954 and once as a Board of Trade Minister in 1957, and had some opportunity, in particular, to study her economic problems and economic relationships with this country.
I shall make my position about South Africa clear, but the main theme of what I want to say is not that. My main theme corresponds with my main concern—the implications of these events from the point of view of the Commonwealth as a whole. I think that it is not only a sad thing but a bad thing that South Africa has had to leave the Commonwealth—a bad thing not only for South Africa, not even only for the

Commonwealth as a whole, but for those individual member nations of the Commonwealth who are at present inclined to make it a matter of rejoicing.
At times of present jubilation, it is well to remember the wise words of Sir Robert Walpole:
They may ring their bells now; before long they will be wringing their hands.
Those nations will learn, even if they do not know as yet, that what diminishes the Commonwealth as a whole diminishes each individual member of it.
However, I want to say, first, a word about South Africa itself. I have always felt that South Africa is a country for which Nature has done everything, but whose prospects are unfortunately bedevilled by political and racial issues. I am against apartheid. I think that it is wrong, socially undesirable, and economically impracticable. I deplore the decision of South Africa to become a republic. I must add, though I do it with regret, because I had a very friendly and hospitable welcome, that I do not much care for the parochialism of the majority party in the Union, which is, unfortunately, one of its political characteristics.
Though I am strongly against apartheid, I do not consider that it constitutes a sufficient reason for forcing South Africa out of the Commonwealth, because it is a matter of South Africa's internal policy. After all, there are many aspects of the internal affairs of many countries which we do not like. There are some aspects of our own internal affairs which we probably do not like. But we get into very deep water if we start to make these matters a condition of membership of the Commonwealth.

Mrs. Eirene White: Supposing, for the sake of argument, that one of the members of the Commonwealth turned Communist, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman then take the attitude that that was purely a matter of the internal government of that country, of which no notice should be taken?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: We would probably be bound to do so; but I point out to the hon. Lady and the House that there is a distinction. If apartheid, like


Communism, were an article for export and international propagation, reinforced by all the odious apparatus of espionage and subversive propaganda, it might be another story. But it is not, because one of the good things about the parochialism, which, in general, I deprecate, as I have said, of the majority party in the Union, is that it regards this doctrine as its own specific patent and formula, and it does not show any desire to extend its application into other nations. That is the answer to the hon. Lady and that is what distinguishes the two cases.

Mr. Donald Wade: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Union of South Africa has applied that policy to South-West Africa, which is a mandated territory outside the Union's borders?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I think that, in general, it is clear that the South Africans do not regard it as an article of export, and if the hon. Member studies the evidence fairly, as I am sure he will, he must agree with the statement of Mr. Menzies about this matter. He put it very succinctly when he said:
This is as much a matter of domestic policy to South Africa as Australia's immigration policy is a matter for us.
That is, the Australians.
We have to face the fact that there has been a jettisoning of this principle. It is defended by some on the ground that it may be only a temporary withdrawal. I hope as much as another that South Africa will come back into the Commonwealth; but we are bound to face the fact that difficult practical issues are involved. How will it come back, on what terms, and for what period?
I ask hon. Members to look at the actualities of the situation. Suppose that at the next election or the one after that the present Government are defeated. Suppose a Government formed by the United Party or the Progressive Party are prepared to go back on apartheid, but the Nationalist Party retains it as part of its programme and says that it will restore it? On that the new Government ask for readmission.
What is the Commonwealth to say? The Commonwealth cannot say, "You may come in as a permanent member, but only on condition that you renounce

apartheid for ever". We all know that, constitutionally, a Government cannot do that. A Government cannot bind their successors, and they cannot bind the electors. They cannot give that pledge, any more than we on this side of the House could give an international pledge that the steel industry would never be re-nationalised.
What else could the Commonwealth say? Could it say, "South Africa may come back into membership while this Government remain in power, but she will have to go out again if the Nationalists are re-elected"? Of course the Commonwealth could not say that. That proposition has only to be enunciated in the House to be instantly repudiated in the breasts of every hon. Member, nurtured as we are in the principles of parliamentary democracy.
If the Nationalists stick to this doctrine, which we all hope they will not, what other alternative is there except the two I have stated? We are faced with this prospect. To those who seek to palliate the gravity of these events by saying that they may be only temporary, we must say, in the words of Hamlet,
Lay not that flattering unction to your soul.
These events are grave, and their implications are graver still, because they constitute the jettisoning of a root Commonwealth principle—that of non-interference in the internal affairs of sister nations. That principle is more than a characteristic of our Commonwealth association. It is its indispensable and necessary condition. It is born of the very circumstances of the Commonwealth and rooted in its very soil and nature, in the diversity of its nations, and in the infinite variety of its conditions. Tolerance of one another and abstention from interference in each other's internal affairs has always been the seemly principle and necessary practice of our Commonwealth association.
We can judge it on the very highest plane. We can judge it by our attitude to religion. When the Commonwealth was founded, fifty years ago, all the self-governing nations were a comity of Christian nations. It might well have seemed to our fathers fifty years ago, and it would certainly have seemed to our grandfathers or greatgrandfathers, 100


or 150 years ago, that it was wrong to contemplate anything else. But we compromised on that and we have today, happily, within the Commonwealth not only Christians but Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and men of all religions and, less happily, of none.
What more striking testimony could there be to the catholicity and comprehensiveness of our Commonwealth? What more convincing evidence could there be that uniformity of practice and belief was not to be required, but that the sole conditions of membership were to be past association and present co-operation?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that the kind of Christian tests which he says our fathers might have applied went out with the disappearance of Christian tests altogether? What he is envisaging has long since gone by.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I do not think that that was a very helpful intervention. I know that it was not intended to be helpful to me, but it was not helpful to the debate, to the House, or to the reputation of the hon. and learned Member.
What would happen if we were to apply tests and conditions, which, very properly, we have not applied in the sphere of religion, to any other matters? What other matters suggest themselves? Surely, the matters that first suggest themselves are those of liberty and parliamentary democracy, the abiding passions of our countrymen through the ages. But if we apply tests on those matters we are in an immediate difficulty, because it would mean the acceptance of standards for the Commonwealth lower than those we think right here at home.
I do not want to go into these matters, but it is well known that in the sphere of civil liberties, the treatment of minorities, the rôle of the Opposition—indeed, there are certain skeletons in more than one of our Commonwealth cupboards.
We are, therefore, faced with this dilemma: if we are to prescribe tests and conditions on these great matters, we are either forced, in order to preserve total membership, always to take the lowest standard in any particular context—and thereby to present to the world a code of Commonwealth conduct lower

than we would wish—or else other nations would have to follow South Africa into the wilderness.
That applies to tests on liberty and parliamentary democracy; but even if we are not to prescribe conditions as to that, there are other matters. Take, simply, the racial issue itself, out of which this arises. If we are to prescribe standards and conditions as to that, what more logical condition than the unrestricted right of Commonwealth immigration, irrespective of race, colour and means? Suppose we apply that test: how many members would there be sitting round the table, apart from ourselves?
Or there might be a social test—the absolute elimination of any caste system, as being wrong—or there might be an economic test, which might eliminate any country which had a substantial proportion of the equity of its industry owned by a non-Commonwealth country. If we are to apply tests like that, some would exclude the Afro-Asian countries, some would exclude the White countries, and some would exclude both.
I think that the pursuit of tests might well take us along the path of dissolution. So I say, "Let us not have these tests and conditions prescribed." We do not want any rigid written constitution in our Commonwealth relations. We do not want any formal agreements or legally enforceable conditions. We want, rather, to adhere to the splendid words of Burke, when he referred to what we now know as the Commonwealth.
Burke said that it is the spirit of British communion that binds the mysterious contexture of the whole.
… the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
I think that the attitude of one Commonwealth nation to another should be based on the precepts in Matthew VII: 1 and John VIII: 7. If that had been done in this case, I say that no judgment would have been pronounced and that the stones would have been left uncast.
I am sure that the overwhelming majority of us in this country do not look for the shortcomings of our Commonwealth friends and associates. If there is a fault, we do not, like Pharisees, say, "Thank God we are not as other men are." We thank God rather that we in this country have been able to arrive at the point of constitutional arrangement


at which we have arrived—not thanks to those of us here, now, or those of us in this generation, but thanks to the patient endeavour and tolerant wisdom of our forebears.
And we thank God, do we not, that we are spared some of these hard and intractable problems that press upon our sister nations, with their many races and their diverse conditions? This has been the outlook in the past; it is the outlook that I think should continue—an outlook summarised, again, in Mr. Menzies' words—and I make no apology for quoting this mature and eminent statesman on these matters:
The Commonwealth is an association of independent nations each managing its own affairs in its own way but all co-operating for common purposes.
That is the right way to look at it, in my view. But it looks as if we have come to a decisive break and that there is some change in the pattern of our Commonwealth relations as a whole and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference in particular. We have that on the testimony both of the old hand and the new. Mr. Menzies says:
What the implications for the future of the Commonwealth may be we do not as yet know. For myself, I am deeply troubled.
Tunku Abdul Rahman says:
The Commonwealth can now mean something and play its part, as a result of this stand, for the peace and good of mankind. With apartheid out of the way the Commonwealth can now become a living force.
He says that it can "now" become a living force, but some of us have believed that the Commonwealth has always been a living force, and a force for good. But be that as it may, it is quite clear that there is some decisive change, whether it be a matter for jubilation, as the Tunku proclaims, or whether it be a matter for apprehension, as Mr. Menzies thinks.
If there is to be such a change, then we in this House must know the nature, form and direction of that change. Does it mean, for example, that in the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conferences what has hitherto been private and practical will become increasingly public and polemical? Does it mean that the Prime Ministers, particularly of the newer States, will feel that they must have increasing executive power the more easily to negotiate with their fel-

low Prime Ministers, and thus become more like American-type Presidents than British-type Prime Ministers? These are disturbing possibilities—and they are only examples—which make us share Mr. Menzies' apprehensions of these matters.
An African official was quoted in a Sunday newspaper as saying that Britain had to bow to African and Asian opinion. Moscow, of course, represents it as a British defeat, and I think that we must concede that the traditional forces of moderation led by my right hon. Friend have sustained a setback; although I do not attach any blame to him for that because he has clearly had very difficult conditions with which to deal and some matters, or certainly one, which he could hardly have expected. But there is, I think, a gathering impression that events are taking hold in some of these matters.
I am certainly not against change—far from it—but the fact that some change is necessary and desirable does not mean that all change is inevitable and beneficial. That is not my interpretation—I am sure that it would not be my right hon. Friend's interpretation—of the meaning of "the wind of change". Of course, the quality of the wind of change depends upon the pace and direction of the particular wind. The sort of winds that my right hon. Friend had in mind, I think, were those refreshing breezes which bring relief and stimulus after a period of unwonted and protracted calm. But there are other sorts of wind not unknown in Africa—winds of hurricane force, which can sweep away in their dread procession not only the memorials of the past and the landmarks of the present, but the hopes and prospects of the future, too.
Time, we are told, is not on our side, and a price may have to be paid for caution. But there may be a heavier penalty to be paid; precipitence may exact a heavier penalty than prudence. I ask my right hon. Friends to have these considerations in mind in the great tasks which lie to their hands. It may be that on that aspect of the matter I may have to seek to trouble the House again on some other occasion. Tonight, I want only to say this. These events have imposed a heavy task upon my right hon. Friends in the Commonwealth sphere in which we wish them well. Their task is


to make our Commonwealth ties, once more, in Burke's language,
Ties light as air but strong as links of iron".
That they should succeed in that is, I am sure, the fervent prayer and petition of us all.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: It has been refreshing to listen to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). He has cast aside the inhibitions and formalities of his period in office and spoke with veritable rhetoric to the House. He was kinder to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister than had been his other right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who was speaking earlier in the debate and is now sitting beside him.
I think that in the speech which has just been delivered by the right hon. and learned Member there was a good deal that was of value in the observations that he had to make about the implications of the new disposition to investigate the internal affairs of member states of the Commonwealth. I for my part, in a serious matter of this kind, in which different opinions are to be found in different parts of the House, thought that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say about that was of value and that there was a good deal of correctness in it.
The view which has, perhaps, been most widely expressed and accepted in the course of this debate is that the Commonwealth can hardly expect to survive and prosper in the fashion that we want it to do unless the member States of it are bound together and can be seen to be bound together by a common acceptance of certain clearly expressed and understood ideals and principles.
The Leader of the Liberal Party, very wisely, no doubt, pointed out the danger that sometimes attaches to too loose, vague and blurred treatment of concepts of that kind. I would expect him to agree none the less that there are a good many definitive concepts which can be usefully and sensibly applied when we endeavour to give a constructive and at the same time accurate account of the bonds that keep the Commonwealth

together. We want that to continue and I cannot think of any principle clearer in character for that purpose to serve as a definite principle for Commonwealth relations and Commonwealth associations than the principle of hostility to racial discrimination. I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about that. There is no doubt whatever that recent difficulties have brought that matter right to the forefront.
There is another proposition in this whole matter of our developing Commonwealth and Commonwealth Relations which also is true but which, to my mind, runs in some sort and to some extent contrary to the first proposition which I have put forward. If the Commonwealth is to survive with the strength and permanent values which we desire in it, then, inevitably, in the nature of things and in the nature of men, there will be periods when a member State does things deeply repugnant to other member States of the Common wealth. On any showing, that is bound to occur in the years to come. What I believe weighs with a good many of us is this. If, every time this occurs, the defaulting Government either withdraws or is excluded from the Commonwealth then for certain the Commonwealth will not survive in the way, for the length of time, or with the strength and power which we on all sides of the House desire for it.
This is a factor which at this stage in our Commonwealth history should be in the forefront of our minds. I am not discussing for the moment any necessity there may recently have been for the exclusion or withdrawal of South Africa. After all, a good deal depends upon what went on behind closed doors, in the discussions which took place, and all the rest, and I think one would be ill advised to judge too sharply or too clearly upon that matter with the information we have at our command. But, the event having occurred—I agree with the description "tragedy" Which has been applied to it—it is appropriate at the present stage of our Commonwealth affairs that we should recognise how serious would be the consequences if, as I say, every defaulting member of the Commonwealth at any time in the future were forced either to be excluded or to withdraw. Then, the great hopes which


we have had for the institution of the Commonwealth and for the whole concept would be far less strong and firm than many of us have thus far entertained.
This was a viewpoint implicit, I think, in what the Prime Minister said when he insisted, quite rightly, in my judgment, that the Commonwealth is an association not of Governments but of peoples. This is a concept also which I had thought was one upon which the Prime Minister of India had particularly seized. He had grasped the significance of it. It may be that he has done so because, in his position, he had a special interest in the concept of Republican membership of the Commonwealth.
In my view, we ought to be very insistent at this stage in our affairs to emphasise that, if the Commonwealth is to survive, it is absolutely necessary that matters should so develop and prevail that occasional and, perhaps, transient conduct by one member State which is repugnant to the rest shall not be regarded as something requiring either withdrawal or exclusion.
To follow up this point, I venture to put to the House a hypothetical case which I hope will not be regarded in any way as fanciful or far-fetched. Let us take the case—it may easily occur—of a member State which is acting in flagrant contravention of the kind of basic principle which I have indicated is properly regarded as defining and identifying the Commonwealth ideal. Let us suppose that there is a general election in that state and that a new Government is returned to power which abandons the policies of its predecessor. Let us further suppose that meanwhile the State has either withdrawn or been expelled from the Commonwealth.
It is at this point that I agree with so much of what the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East said. In a great concept like the British Commonwealth, we cannot have States hopping in and out, with changing governments and changing viewpoints. That does not accord with the status of the Commonwealth which has hitherto inspired both sides of the House. I insist on the point that henceforward we must either see this concept of Commonwealth perish or devise some method under which it becomes possible for the

member States to achieve, in practical and constitutional terms, toleration towards a particular member State, or more than one member State, which is going, perhaps temporarily, through a transient phase of policy repugnant to the rest of the association and repugnant even to the basic ideals which can be brought forward to identify the Commonwealth aspiration.
That is the point that I desire to put to the House. These matters are brought forward in our minds by a grave historical event, namely, the withdrawal of South Africa from the Commonwealth. Uppermost in my mind are the countless numbers of South Africans who are cut adrift from this House by this sad affair.
Surely, when we are seeking to develop the idea that I have put forward of a Commonwealth which is tolerant of transient misdemeanours, errors or follies by the government of a member state, we must realise the importance of two factors. First, the degree of shame and error attaching to the violation by the offending member state and its government. There was no doubt about that in the case of South Africa. Secondly, the extent to which the policies which are objectionable are opposed by a minority within the country in question. Surely that must be a highly relevant matter in determining the appropriate constitutional development of a country's relation with the Commonwealth.
To take the case of South Africa, what do we know about opinion there? We know from the recent referendum that there is an enormous minority so loyal to the British connection as to be discontented with membership of a republic inside the Commonwealth and desiring the full queenship of Her Majesty. There was clearly in that popular vote evidence of an enormous element in the population, not far short of half of those who voted, sharing the view very largely which, so far as I can judge, is shared between the two sides of this House—hostility to apartheid. I should have thought that the presence, on the evidence, of so vast a minority on an issue of this kind would have been a highly relevant factor for the Prime Ministers' Conference to keep in mind. The point that I sought to develop earlier is that this is the kind of matter which on future occasions should be kept in mind when


determining how we can best treat the occasion of a member State of the Commonwealth which is transiently responsible for errors or abberations of government.
In these circumstances, on the night of this debate, there should be the very strongest and closest possible nexus and sense of comradeship between both sides of this House and that great minority in South Africa. Let us bear in mind, in addition, that the referendum, held in the circumstances in which it was held, showed what to some of us appeared a surprisingly small majority for a republic. What would the result have been if it had been thought at the time of that vote that the consequence of becoming a republic would be exclusion or withdrawal from the Commonwealth? If that had been known to be the consequence at the time of the referendum, would not the effect upon the result have been very considerable indeed? Is it not perfectly certain that, at the very least, the majority for a republic would have been much less? We have also to bear in mind, quite obviously, the non-voting population of South Africa—the Bantu. It may be said that the Bantu in large numbers are indifferent, but I am perfectly sure that, though large numbers of them may be indifferent, there are large numbers of them also who are deeply resentful and feel great dismay and regret at the separation of South Africa from the Commonwealth. It means in their minds a severe blow to their aspirations.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will my hon. Friend take into account that the leaders of the African people demanded and were eager for this action? They certainly did not want to see Dr. Verwoerd return in triumph to Cape Town, as he would have done had he had his way at the Conference?

Mr. Irvine: My hon. Friend's intervention is beside the point. I think he would agree with me that, as between Dr. Verwoerd inside the Commonwealth and Dr. Verwoerd outside the Commonwealth, there are probably a large number of the Bantu who would prefer him in. There may not have been very much in it but there are surely many of them who hold that view. I would expect my hon. Friend to agree with me in that.
The important point, as I venture to put it to the House at this stage in our affairs, in the light of what has occurred, is to ensure that in future we recognise that if the Commonwealth is to survive in the status and the strength that we contemplated and expected for it, we have to work out some kind of method under which the association can cope with and overcome the difficulties created by temporary and transient errors and follies by the Government of a member-State. That seems to me to be the significant matter in Commonwealth affairs to which we should now apply our minds.
Subject to that, I would only wish, and from this side of the House—let there be no mistake about that, from this side of the House—to convey to the great minority in South Africa, who not only did not want the tragedy that has occurred, but who were even discontented with republican membership of the Commonwealth and wanted the still closer connection, that they have plenty of friends here in Westminster.

9.36 p.m.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) professed to give a message only from his side of the House to the great minority in South Africa. I should like to assure him that he speaks for the whole House. I was moved when the hon. and learned Member said that there should be a nexus or link between the two sides of the House in deploring and mourning what has happened. It would not be right that this debate should take place without the deepest expressions of regret at what is an almost unadulterated tragedy. That the country of Smuts, the coiner of the word "Commonwealth", the country of the early British colonists in Natal and Cape Colony, the country of the early Dutch and the early Huguenot refugees, should part from us and that the family should be broken up like that is an almost unadulterated tragedy, and all because, as the hon. and learned Member said, of the antics and the obstinacy of a party which even today may be in a minority amongst the white voters. We on this side join with the hon. and learned Member and his colleagues in mourning what has occurred.
I do not, however, go the whole way with the hon. and learned Member or


with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) in seeking, as they appear to be, for a written constitution for the Commonwealth.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: rose—

Sir G. Nicholson: My right hon. and learned Friend did not use those words, but I suspected—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I think that it is within the recollection of the House that I said precisely the opposite.

Sir G. Nicholson: I am sorry if I misinterpreted my right hon. and learned Friend. Perhaps I do not misinterpret him or the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill when I say that I felt that both of them felt that there was something fundamentally wrong when it became possible for any member State to be expelled or to lapse from membership of the Commonwealth because it followed an internal policy which was not acceptable to the other members of the Commonwealth. I detected in that, perhaps, a legal hope towards a codification or set of rules for the Commonwealth. If I did my right hon. and learned Friend an injustice, I apologise.
The Commonwealth must be taken as something which exists. We should not spend our time in seeking for theoretical justifications or bases for it. Each situation that arises must be taken on its own. There was a difficult situation here which had to be met by a practical solution. The difficult situation was that the Commonwealth would have lost most or many of its coloured members had South Africa remained in it. I hope that as the development of the Commonwealth takes place, each problem will be dealt with as it arises in a practical and pragmatic manner.
I prefer to regard the Commonwealth as a complex of obligations. I believe that it has in it something of the family, something of the democratic basis and something of many other bases. The fundamental thing is that we, as the leading State in the Commonwealth, have obligations towards the other member States. The obligations most in evidence at the moment are the multi-racial obligations. I believe that this moment of tragedy when South Africa leaves the Commonwealth is the watershed in

our thinking, and that it demands that we should accept the full implications of a multi-racial Commonwealth.
However, I did not rise to talk much about the Commonwealth except to say that I welcome the multi-racial nature. I think our eyes should be not only on the tragedy which has happened but should be on other things, more cheerful things, such as Her Majesty's visit to India, such as the emergence today of yet a new member of the Commonwealth, such as the emergence of Nigeria at whose independence celebrations I was fortunate enough to be present. We are attempting something which may very well fail. We have no business to demand or even to expect success, but only to hope and pray and work for it. The creation of a multi-racial Commonwealth would be something in the nature of a miracle, and I do not think we should pitch our hopes too high, but dedicate ourselves to that task, resolved to pay the price, and the price may well be the loss of other members of the Commonwealth in the course of time.
I want us to think today of the message which this House should send to South Africa. One message has been given by the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill, a message of affection and of continued interest in the white minority and in the large black and coloured and Asian communities in the Union of South Africa. I think there is more in it than that. We cannot gaze into the crystal and foresee the future, but I believe that our affection and interest in the whole Union of South Africa will be called on more than ever within the next few months. I believe that this is only the beginning of the difficulties which the Union of South Africa is bound to face.
I think that the message which we should send out is that in all those difficulties we are still there; that the people of South Africa may have left the family and renounced the obligations which tie them to us, but we still feel those obligations towards them; that we shall not condemn them out of hand; that we may condemn their policies, we may condemn their actions, but that we do not condemn them, whether they be Dutch or British, for being mistaken and following policies which have, to some extent, been forced upon them by their history and ancestry and environment.
I regard this as a tragic day which will not have been wholly wasted if it leads us to rethinking our attitude towards the Commonwealth and results in our sending a message from this House that we are not abandoning South Africa, whether it be those who agree with us or those who do not.

9.43 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I think that all of us realise that we are debating an historic fact. I have much sympathy with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) in recognising, as he did, that the real essence of the problems which we are facing in the Commonwealth today is a change in the balance of world politics. It is, no doubt, very uncomfortable for persons in the Commonwealth, represented by some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who have considered that they have a predestined right to be the top people in the Commonwealth, to find that the balance in world politics is changing and that one has now to take into account the opinions of persons whom even five or ten years ago one would not have considered at all.
Dr. Verwoerd himself, in the speech which he made following the Prime Minister's Conference, said that South Africa was leaving the Commonwealth because the Commonwealth was now dominated by the Afro-Asian countries.
In a sense one can see what he means, but surely that is something to which we must adjust ourselves. We must recognise that world politics have changed with astonishing rapidity. In 1945 one would not have expected that by this time so many Prime Ministers would be attending the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. For many people it means a considerable adjustment to their psychology and to their attitude towards the politics of the world. That is a challenge which we ought courageously to accept.
What I find so depressing about some of the speeches of hon. Members opposite is that they seem to have no concept of how this change is working, and no intention of accepting this challenge in a constructive way. It is because we have to face this challenge that we regard the withdrawal of South Africa

from the Commonwealth, regrettable as it is in many respects, in many ways a help, because it means that we will be able, I hope more constructively, more easily and amicably, to achieve co-operation with the Commonwealth countries in the new situation in which we in Britain now find ourselves.
We have had suggestions that we should not have taken this attitude towards the withdrawal of South Africa because, much as we deplore this policy of apartheid—this was suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine—it is a transitory matter. I wish very much that I could believe that it was. If I supposed that in South Africa there was a fair chance that after an election in a year or two there would be a change of Government and a change of this system I would take a different view from what I take tonight. I do not believe that the Nationalist Government of South Africa is based on racial discrimination, but I do not believe that it is a democratic Government in intention, either. It has in its philosophy the essence of totalitarianism, and its racial beliefs are allied with a political philosophy which is not democratic in the sense in which we understand it.
I believe that having attained power in South Africa the Nationalists are prepared to take steps, and have taken steps, to ensure their perpetuation in that country. I am far from optimistic. I do not believe that it is at all probable that for many years to come we shall see a change of Government in the Union of South Africa by democratic means. If one looks at the gerrymandering of the constituencies and the weighting of votes in favour of rural areas, one cannot help but be extremely suspicious of the possibility of democratic Parliamentary government in South Africa and of obtaining a change in the régime in the way which would be natural enough in this country.
I am sorry to have to say this, but I think that it is true. When one is discussing the philosophy of the Nationalist Party—and I again say this with deep regret but with absolute sincerity—one is only too sharply and keenly reminded of the discussions one had to have in the 1930s with persons who supported the Nazi régime in Germany, because the mental outlook is common


to both. It is not just a matter of being parochial. There is something far deeper in it than that.
For that reason the Prime Minister has been wrestling with what I believe are the forces of evil, and in trying to argue with Dr. Verwoerd he found himself up against a dogma against which argument is impotent because one is arguing on a completely different plane. One is arguing on completely different assumptions as to the nature of society and the nature of man, in precisely the same way as if one tries to argue with a convinced Communist or a convinced Nazi. One cannot argue with them because they do not accept the processes of reason. They move from a different set of assumptions by different mental processes. All of that is true of the convinced Nationalists in the Union of South Africa.
That is why I feel that a State which has that type of Government at its head, with very little chance of its being replaced by a Government with a different political philosophy, by the ordinary processes as we would expect in this country, is better out of the body politic of the Commonwealth. I do not believe that when we are dealing with persons of that nature we can come to an accommodation with them, and it is far better to recognise the fact. That is why I interrupted the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). He slid away, in his Oxford Union manner, from several points, including the one I put to him. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sorry, but I felt that in some respects he was superficial in the way he replied.

Mr. C. Osborne: No. It was a very good speech.

Mr. Charles Pannell: The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) is not necessarily a judge of that.

Mrs. White: I asked what we would do in the unfortunate situation, if it should occur—I know that it is hypothetical, but it is relevant—of one of the other countries of the Commonwealth turning Communist. I believe that precisely the same considerations would arise. We would then have a Government with whom we could not deal, in a Commonwealth context. They would

be arguing on a different plane, and we just would not be able to meet them.
Similar considerations would arise if it should happen that a Commonwealth country became subject to a totalitarian régime. We should not be able to hope for a change. That is why, although I deeply regret the breaking of links with persons who are themselves opposed to their Government, I nevertheless feel that it is healthier for the Commonwealth that South Africa should have withdrawn from it.
For a period of years the Labour Party has been pressed by some of its own supporters and also by some African organisations to say that it officially wished to expel South Africa from the Commonwealth. We have always resisted that demand, and said, "No. So long as there is the slightest chance of our hoping to influence events in the Union of South Africa, and of being able to help the people in the Union who are themselves standing up against the policies of the Nationalist Government, we should certainly not think of expulsion or anything of that kind. We should do our utmost, by whatever means are available to us, to help those people to arrive at the same view of liberty and human dignity as we have."
But within the last year or two it has become clear to everyone that our opportunities of influencing or helping have now grown so limited as to be virtually non-existent. We have therefore sadly come to the conclusion that there is little we can do to help those in the Union of South Africa who are trying to oppose the Nationalist Government. We cannot even adequately defend our own British protected persons, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) pointed out recently. Still less have we been able to show any particular in which we have influenced the Government of Dr. Verwoerd in a more liberal direction. The Prime Minister himself has completely failed to do so, and we cannot pretend to have more influence than he has.
We therefore reluctantly came to the conclusion, officially, as a Labour Party, that we cannot honestly say that we can in any sense influence or help. We therefore decided to support the suspension of the membership of South Africa in


the Commonwealth until such time, if it should occur in the future, when we can say that their ideas have changed sufficiently for us to be able to work in community with them, in some reasonable sense of that word. Should that time ever come, no one will be happier than we on this side of the House. But one must be realistic about it and I feel that one cannot be hopeful that that period will arrive in the near future.

9.55 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: Perhaps I may preface my remarks by declaring an interest, for I was born in South Africa and I lived there for part of my childhood. I have since been back there, but not now for many years. I have still relatives and friends and business connections in the Union of South Africa and, therefore, I try to keep up to date with events in that great country. This is, indeed, a most tragic affair. It is the most disruptive event so far seen in our British Commonwealth of Nations.
It has been pleaded that because it was by consent it was not, therefore, the undermining of a principle to allow internal policies to be discussed in this recent gathering in London. That may be so, but that is rather special pleading. What is the tragedy? It is not so much South Africa's withdrawal, and that is tragic enough, as the undermining of a principle by allowing, by consent, the discussion of internal policy, and that has been the cause of the withdrawal of a member State from this great organisation.
It can be argued, and it has been argued, that South Africa's withdrawal has, so to speak, lanced an ulcer that would have suppurated annually at each successive Prime Ministers' Conference. That may be so, but for long it has been an accepted principle in all international affairs, whether in diplomatic or other channels in the Commonwealth, that it is not proper to criticise other people's internal arrangements. That now has been set aside.
This has created a most dangerous precedent. Where does it lead us now? Those who live in the most spacious glass-houses have been in this case the persons to throw the stones. What has been happening in Malaya for many years and what continues to happen in

Malaya now that she is self-governing in her Federation? It is, in a way, apartheid between Malay and Chinese. There is racial discrimination in that country.
In the birth of two great States in the Indian sub-continent, between 2 million and 3 million people lost their lives in racial riots, disorders and religious discrimination. Would it be proper for the future Conferences of Commonwealth Prime Ministers to hark back to those events? Would it be proper for them to criticise the Indian Government's attitude over Kashmir? I do not think so, and that is why I say that this is a real tragedy. In Ghana, many measures, undemocratic by any standard, exist today. How would the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) like to find himself in prison tomorrow just by virtue of being Leader of the Opposition?

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Proceedings on any Motion for the Adjournment of the House moved by a Minister of the Crown exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for One hour after Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: These are the prospects which cause me great concern. We, even in this country, who pride ourselves on our democratic principles are not free from taint. It is not so long ago, we remember with shame, that we had the Notting Hill riots. What else were those but a manifestation of racial discrimination? We can also remember with a certain amount of shame—or some of us can—the refusal of British coal miners to work with men of another nation when there was ample work for all in that industry. All these internal matters can now be the subject of future discussion.
By casting aside this principle even by consent, by common consent, we have struck a clumsy blow at the very existence of the Commonwealth, not at the membership of any one part of it, for it is its peoples and not its Governments


that matter. I do not think that Her Majesty's Government bear a great measure of the blame, but, obviously, they must share responsibility. I think most of us, on both sides of the House, recognise that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister fought valiantly to avoid this issue, but he and those like him were, unfortunately, outnumbered. As a result, it was judged by Dr. Verwoerd that it was best for South Africa to withdraw her application for membership of the Commonwealth.
It is a strange reflection that in defensive alliances where fear is the motive nations with widely conflicting views and habits can happily bond together, but in the Commonwealth where friendship and mutual benefit is the motive we cannot amicably accept differences of approach to internal problems. In the United Nations, happily, we hob-nob with those who, for two pins, would cut our throats, would rob our mothers, would rape our daughters, but the Commonwealth cannot tolerate a Government whose people, many of them, are our blood brothers.
Let hon. Members reflect that the British Commonwealth has expelled from its midst—perhaps somewhat passively, but, nevertheless, the result has been expulsion—a founder member the majority of whose people white, black and coloured, are guilty of no misdemeanour. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite bear a heavy measure of responsibility for this, to say nothing of a minority of bishops, canons and turbulent priests representing a most unchristian element in our midst.
These and all the rag tag and bobtail of the Socialist Party, in it disarray, share responsibility for this tragic event. They have never missed opportunities—and the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) is not backward among them—for making spiteful references to South Africa in the House and elsewhere. Irresponsible attempts have been made to exacerbate public opinion with sash-adorned pickets outside Lancaster House.
They have engineered a silly but mercifully ineffective boycott of South African goods. The Leader of the Opposition himself pleaded that that was a personal affair. What a petty piece of pleading! If the boycott was calculated to do anything, it was bound to damage

the economic interests of the very Bantu whose cause it was thought to foster. All these foolish, ill-considered actions only tended to accentuate feeling and raise the temperature of the dispute. That is not the way that a family should resolve its squabbles, let alone a family of nations.
I want for a moment to turn to this much discussed and much criticised policy of apartheid. Apartheid means, "separateness". We in the House and in the country are very fond of talking about multi-racial partnership. That does not necessarily mean that the several races should live in each other's pockets, under the same roofs, and in the same locality. It merely means that they work together for the common weal. Apart from its somewhat repulsive method of enforcement, apartheid is an effort to try to do the same thing, and there should be nothing repulsive or repressive in that.
Does any race, black, white or yellow, want such complete integration that inter-marriage is taken for granted? I do not think so, but that is the inevitable result of complete integration. That is the real issue. It is not so much a political as a human issue. I say to hon. Members opposite, "Go back to your constituencies and ask the people if they want their daughters to marry men with different coloured skins. They will tell you, as will many millions of self-respecting Africans, that they do not want it."
It is not the policy of apartheid which is objectionable, but the way it is being implemented by the present South African Government—the undermining of the entrenched clauses of the Act of Union, the removal of the coloured voters' roll, the rigging of the South African Senate, and all the other political measures. On the practical side there were the inhuman enforcement of the pass laws, repressive police measures, unreasonable administrative measures. For all those I naturally blame Dr. Verwoerd and his predecessors and their Governments. I also blame the South African Opposition—the feckless, aimless, disunited, United Party.
The Sharpeville incident was mentioned earlier this evening. Some aspects of this incident are still little known in Britain. It is as well to study for a


few moments the background of this very unfortunate event. For a long time it has been notorious that the South African police are unfortunately of a deplorably low standard. But for Her Majesty's Government's timely action, our own police showed signs of going that way. We must face that.
Low pay, poor service conditions, and low morale attract a poor type of Afrikaaner and English-speaking South African to the South African police. A very large proportion of the police are African, and with bad leadership and lack of proper control these very Africans are abnormally repressive and brutal, even towards their own people. It is a frightened force, and fear is indeed a bad counsellor.
Some months before the Sharpeville incident a small force of unarmed police was sent from Durban to the notorious speak-easy Cato Manor district outside Durban. It was sent there to enforce the liquor laws. Africans who lived in the area were drunk on Kaffir beer brewed in illicit and unhygienic conditions. They were also—this was much more serious—drinking themselves to death on raw wood alcohol similarly produced.
About ten policemen—mainly Africans, but I think that there were two white officers with them—were sent into this district to try to clear up this situation. They were hacked to death with knives and choppers. Not one survived. Was it therefore surprising that when a few months later an admittedly very much larger force of police was confronted by a very much larger mob of Africans, some of whom were obviously angry, the police lost their heads and opened fire prematurely and indiscriminately? It was due to lack of leadership and bad morale. Of course that does not excuse it, but it is the underlying human reason behind this evil thing. We should all acknowledge that.
As I said before, South Africa's departure is a tragedy. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have discussed the possibilities of calling her back into the midst of the Commonwealth in happier circumstances. We shall be trying to do a very difficult thing, but nevertheless I hope that we succeed.

There are people—some of them are not very far from where I stand—who crow over this expulsion of one of the founder nations of the Commonwealth. They should remember that we are losing a great many loyal humane people of all races in the Union of South Africa. I hope that a message will go from the House tonight to those people that the door is not shut for ever.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: The hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) has blazed away in all directions tonight. His shots have fallen indiscriminately upon his own Front Bench, upon us on this side, upon the South African Government, upon the Africans in South Africa, upon the Opposition in South Africa—indeed, upon everybody except himself.
I cannot, however, join issue with the hon. and gallant Gentleman too seriously; he had a distinguished war record, and I always treasure that for him. I will only say that when he first came to the House I regarded him as a comparatively enlightened member of the Service in which I had the honour to serve, but if he goes on like this he is in danger of becoming completely fossilised. I do hope that he will seek to come right up to date and try to live in 1961. I realise that it may take some time before it percolates to the area he represents, but he must realise that we are living in a different world today. I trust that I shall yet have the pleasure of hearing him make a speech of which I can agree with one part—

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: The hon. Gentleman is courteous, as always. The House has learned to expect that of him.

Mr. Callaghan: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that I was not trying to be courteous to him. If I succeeded, it was a great mistake.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has asked me to apologise to the House; he is fulfilling another engagement which was a prior commitment, and he regrets that he cannot be here.
I do not think there are many points that have not already been touched upon in this debate, so what I shall seek to do is to emphasise one or two matters on which we would like the Secretary of


State for Commonwealth Relations to dilate at rather greater length than did the Prime Minister—although I can understand that.
The Prime Minister left, for example, the question of the High Commission Territories to the Commonwealth Relations Secretary to deal with. As has been said by many hon. Members on both sides, there is here a very grave problem. There is, first of all, the dependence of these territories upon South Africa for so much of their day-to-day sustenance and daily life. If South Africa were to erect barricades, I fear that the lot of the people living in the High Commission Territories would be very serious indeed, and I think that we must do our best, in the negotiations that must take place now that South Africa has withdrawn, to try to preserve the position of the people of those territories as best we may.
Among many other things, there is the necessity for spending far more money on the development of the High Commission Territories than we have so far done. The Morse Report has been referred to more than once. It is fair to say that the Government have taken no action—no major action—on any of the recommendations of that Report, although it has been out for a twelvemonth. The Government should now tell the House that they are ready to put into effect the measures necessary to raise the standard of life and provide for employment of the people of the Protectorates at the earliest possible moment.
I hope, too, that we shall hear something from the right hon. Gentleman about the future of education in those territories. My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said earlier that all higher education must be conducted in South Africa. It is true that the economies and the educational facilities have become so intertwined that this cutting off of South Africa from the Commonwealth will add very much to the difficulty of those territories, and I hope, and ask, that the right hon. Gentleman will prosecute the position of those territories most earnestly.
The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)

thought that it would be an affront to South Africa to transfer the control of the Territories from the Commonwealth Relations Office to the Colonial Office. Obviously, no one should needlessly affront the South African Government if there is no purpose in it—needlessly—but I do not think that the attitude of that Government in such a matter should determine our approach as to where these territories could best be dealt with.
Looking at the relative experience of the Commonwealth Relations Office and of the Colonial Office, I would say at first sight—and I ask the Government to consider this very carefully—that the arrangements that have so far existed, and, perhaps, could be justified, should no longer exist now that South Africa is, at any rate at this moment, not a member of the Commonwealth. The Colonial Office has got the experience and the administrators. It knows how to handle these developing territories in a way that the Commonwealth Relations Office has not had to deal with them. Therefore, despite the opposition of the noble Lord, I press the request that the Government should give very serious consideration to this matter and should come to the House later with a considered statement on their conclusions. Meanwhile, I should want to be convinced. I think the onus is on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to convince us, if he does not make the transfer, that there are good reasons for not making it. As matters stand at the moment, I think there are good reasons for making it.
The next point which was raised by a number of hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend, is the position of the Government in relation to the United Nations and South-West Africa. I should like the Secretary of State to give us an indication of the attitude of the Government towards the current discussions in the United Nations Assembly which will come to the vote before long, and to give us an assurance that now that the restraints that may have held the Government back in the past are removed, we shall no longer find ourselves isolated with Portugal and France opposing every other member of the United Nations on a flagrant breach of the United Nations Charter.
A dozen times the United Nations has asked South Africa to account for her mandate on South-West Africa. Whatever legal sophistries may be erected by the South African Government, there is no moral title on their part to fail to account for their trusteeship.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: There is no legal right.

Mr. Callaghan: My right hon. Friend may be correct in saying there is no legal right, but there is a dispute about that. However, I do not see how anyone can take the view, whatever the legal position may be—and there is a dispute about that—that there is any moral right on the part of the South African Government not to account for their action. The Government have a responsibility to the people of South-West Africa to press for the policy of apartheid, which exists in that territory, to be lifted in so far as it is within the power of our Government to exert that pressure.
Whatever right or title the South African Government may think they have to enforce the policy of apartheid in South Africa, they clearly cannot possess that right in South-West Africa. Yet that territory has been absorbed into South Africa administratively. The same social policies have been enforced upon South-West Africa, and I say to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations that he now has a great responsibility, not just to South Africa but to the people living in the territory of South-West Africa, and we ask him to discharge that responsibility.
On questions of citizenship and economic links I would add nothing to what has already been said, but I would ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations a question on defence. This point has not so far been raised, and it is novel to find a new point in this debate. I understand that the South African Government undertook to provide a division in the Middle East. What is the position now? Does that arrangement continue or is that defensive arrangement now at an end? We have heard something about the position of Simonstown, but I should like to know the view of the Government. Do we still want to hold a base there or are we ready to forgo that? To these questions we should have an answer.

We have treaty rights there and it has been made available to us in certain circumstances.
I have listened to nearly the whole of this debate, and, apart from these points, two things have emerged. One is the nature of the internal position in South Africa, and the other is the nature of the Commonwealth and its future. I should like to spend a few minutes on each of those points.
Hon. Members tonight were very loud in their applause of those who spoke feelingly about the position of Africans in South Africa. I am very glad that they feel that way. I wish they had felt that way earlier and that they had joined with us when we were doing the things of which the hon. and gallant Member for Wells complained. It smacks a little of finding some sentiment after the act, for sympathising with the poor African when South Africa leaves the Commonwealth; whereas, if we had had the united force exerted by this country and by both sides of the House in the past, we might have been able to exert more influence on behalf of the African.
We do not need to apologise, and I do not apologise, for taking the part of the under dog in South Africa. Whatever may be the present position or difficulties of the Labour Party, there is one thing which, I think, we can claim that we should always stick to, and that is that we should always remember our history and always be on the side of those who are under-privileged and who do not have the elementary rights of justice accorded to them. I will, with my usual courtesy, give way to the hon. and gallant Member.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Would the hon. Gentleman therefore explain what the Labour Party intended in sponsoring the boycott?

Mr. Callaghan: I have explained that to the hon. and gallant Member before, but I fear that his memory is not what it used to be. He will remember that in the course of the last debate I explained then, as I explain now, that the Labour Party did not sponsor this boycott.

Mr. Russell: Did they discourage it?

Mr. Callaghan: No, but they did not sponsor the boycott. The origin of the boycott was in South Africa. The origin


of the boycott was amongst South Africans. The origin of the boycott was that South Africans came here and asked both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party if they would support them in their protest against apartheid. The Labour Party supported them, but the Conservative Party did not, although to their honour individual Members did. That is the whole origin of it, and that is the explanation of it. If the hon. and gallant Member feels that he played a noble part in that he is entitled to his view, but I do not think that he did.
I complain that we did not have this support from most hon. Members opposite when we were trying to do these things earlier, and all that we get now are laments about the tragedy of South Africa leaving the Commonwealth. There are two tragedies here. Every hon. Member opposite who has spoken has referred to the tragedy of South Africa leaving the Commonwealth. There is the other tragedy that South Africa fails to amend or repudiate the policies which have led to it. I say to hon. Members opposite that that is the tragedy which is uppermost in my mind, because it is the millions of Africans who are denied elementary rights as a matter of principle of whom I think first, and not those who have place, privilege, prestige, economic wealth and all the powers of manipulating them. That is why I am a Socialist.
There is a difference here. I say to hon. Members opposite that the way in which they have conducted their speeches tonight has shown, time after time, that when they have spoken of opinion in South Africa and of what public opinion is in Central Africa the unspoken thought in their minds has been European opinion. I give it to the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) that he did, in fact, say that, of course, moderate Africans in Central Africa agreed. He was the only one. There was no one else who laid down for us what opinion is in these territories who had any thought in his mind except for European opinion. That is something which the Conservative Party has to overcome.
What is to be our attitude to this new Commonwealth? At least there is agreement on this. This conference

marks a water-shed. No longer is the Commonwealth which was an extension of Britain in existence. It has changed. Tears which have been shed by a number of hon. Members opposite have been shed about the death of that Commonwealth, the Commonwealth which was an extension of the British Isles.
It is no longer the British Commonwealth. This Commonwealth does not belong to us. Indeed, I think it possible that, unless we show more energy than we have shown so far, we shall not even be the major Power in determining such common policy as can be developed in the Commonwealth. I want us to do it. We must not face the situation only with a nostalgic looking back over the past, saying, "The British Commonwealth has gone. How sad it all is, and what a tragedy it is". If we can look at what has happened and see that, in fact, what has taken place means that we can make a beginning on the new Commonwealth, then there will be a future for us.
I spent a fortnight in New Zealand about two years ago at a conference discussing what the Commonwealth was. I agree with the noble Lord's analysis here. We found it very difficult to decide what the Commonwealth was and what its significance was. He was quite right. It was not the Crown. It was not even democratic practice. It was not defence. Australia and New Zealand did not feel that they were dependent upon Britain or the Commonwealth for defence. It was not trade ties, we agreed. We asked whether it was the rule of law. Was it the language? We were groping to find something which gave sense and substance and a tangible feeling to the Commonwealth. I do not think we succeeded.
What has happened now means that, for the first time since the ties grew weaker, the Commonwealth has found some bedrock on which to stand. I hope hon. Members will rejoice about that and not just lament that the ties which had disappeared no longer exist. That is the message I leave with them on that aspect of the matter.
How will the Commonwealth develop? Will it discuss all the internal affairs and difficulties of its members? I do not know. I would not rule it out. I should not regard it as such a terribly bad thing


if it did. If the Commonwealth members as a whole were to discuss the restrictions on immigration into certain territories, if they were to discuss the restrictions on the employment of certain people in certain areas, or if they were to discuss the restrictions on the freedom of individuals to move about in those territories, we should not, I think, blanch at that. After all, the Commonwealth Prime Ministers are, I am sure, responsible people. Before these issues are raised, the test should be whether they will help towards Commonwealth understanding and towards a solution of the problems. If they would, I should certainly say that we ought not to discourage discussion of internal problems which may seem to be peculiar to particular countries. This is new, but that is no reason why we should not try to develop along those lines.
What I should oppose would be the bringing of all issues out into the daylight merely in order to exacerbate relationships between us. But, if we wish to find a solution to some of our problems, then let us use the Commonwealth helpfully in that way.
I come now to external affairs. I was glad that the Prime Minister mentioned disarmament. It seems to me that the Commonwealth can play a rôle in this most important subject. I do not know what the House feels, but it is my belief that the more we pile up armaments the more we deny to the peoples of the world the standards of life and conditions which they could have. I regard disarmament, as I believe the House regards it, as, perhaps, the biggest single topic which we have to face. What a wonderful thing it would be if the Commonwealth could project its views in the direction which we all desire. It does not act as a unit now. I do not know whether it will be able to do so; but I should like to see the Commonwealth acting more as a unit on certain of these topics, particularly disarmament. What a wonderful thing it would be if we could co-ordinate our policies and speak with the same voice in the United Nations on the subject. I would feel that our Commonwealth was really performing a great service.
Hon. Members have spoken of the way in which the Commonwealth, by its

existence, bridges the racial gap and of the way in which we can, by pooling our experience, help the under-developed countries of the world. In this particular matter, we have all the technical skill and knowledge we need on both sides of the fence. We can, in my view. In so many different aspects the Commonwealth can act as a bridge between East and West. This was always one of the ideas of Aneurin Bevan. He used to see the Commonwealth becoming a pivot in the strains and stresses which exist between East and West, and although he did not live to see his idea carried through, it is still true that this could happen. We certainly hope that the Prime Ministers and British Prime Minister, in particular, will take the lead in these matters.
I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me—I was going to say I hope he will forgive me—for saying that I thought his speech of sadness on this occasion really missed the point of it. It may be sad to him. It is probably sad to most people in this House, but one Commonwealth Prime Minister, for example, did not say it was sad. He said that he felt a sense of relief. There may be some members of the Commonwealth who will feel jubilant because they will feel a fatal blow has been struck against the policy of apartheid in South Africa, and they want—why should they not want?—to feel themselves free and equal.
Therefore, I say to the Prime Minister that his air, which was like that of an elderly caretaker putting the dust sheets over the furniture in a great house and saying rather wistfully that he hoped the family would come back soon, was not the way in which the new Commonwealth—not our Commonwealth, the new Commonwealth—will respond to British leadership. I believe we can give great leadership to the Commonwealth, and I hope we shall do so.
What has been said tonight by his supporters must have embarrassed him much more than it embarrassed us. If they were like my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) they would be going into the Division Lobbies. But we know they will not. So they will be spared what happened to him. If they had half the courage he


has they would be going into the Division Lobbies tonight. In their speeches they have attacked the Prime Minister, let him remember. They have been attacking him, not us.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Attacking everyone.

Mr. Callaghan: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not have got too much comfort from the speeches which have been made tonight, because so far as I can see there was not one in support of him at all—except myself. I am willing to support him, but I say that the Prime Minister has got to show a lot more energy and a lot more concern with the development of the new Commonwealth than he showed in his speech tonight.

10.38 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I have not quite as long as I hoped to have, so I shall get straight down to answering some of the points which have been raised.
First, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asked about our attitude towards the United Nations. All I would say—I cannot go into great detail on this—is that we shall not be inhibited from expressing our opinion about apartheid, but that does not mean—I want to make it quite clear—that we shall ignore, as was suggested by the hon. Gentleman, the legal position. We do not believe that it enhances the status or influence of the United Nations to pass loosely worded resolutions and arrogate to itself powers which go far beyond the terms of the Charter.
The hon. Gentleman asked about defence arrangements with South Africa, and, in particular, whether South Africa would supply a division for the defence of the Middle East—[Interruption.] I am trying to answer the hon. Member, if, with his usual courtesy, he will listen to what I have to say. The South African Government made it clear several years ago that they considered that that arrangement had lapsed. There are other arrangements, which are based on an exchange of letters in 1955, which provide for certain naval defence arrangements which I believe are to the mutual advantage of both countries. But they will, naturally, be the subject of examina-

tion, and I am not proposing to make any commitment tonight about the future of these arrangements.
A number of references have been made to citizenship. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) urged that South Africans should be given the same status as the Irish. Again, I do not wish to anticipate our study of this extremely complex and delicate question, but I must, however, point out that the position of Ireland and that of South Africa are not the same. The territory of the Irish Republic was, until 1921, part of the United Kingdom and is geographically part of the British Isles. The Republic of Ireland has a common frontier with the United Kingdom and her citizens are constantly coming in to work here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) urged that nothing should be done to disturb trade relations with South Africa. Our special relations with South Africa in trade and economic matters rest, in the main, upon bilateral agreements. While most of these sprang from the special political relationship between South Africa and Britain, the withdrawal of South Africa from the Commonwealth does not have the effect of terminating these agreements. We welcome Dr. Verwoerd's statement that South Africa wishes to remain a member of the sterling area and we share his hope that trade between our two countries will be maintained and expanded.
In his recent speeches, Dr. Verwoerd has been giving the impression that South Africa's withdrawal from the Commonwealth will make no difference, in fact, that everything between us will be just the same and perhaps a little better. I know that to him and to South Africa the Commonwealth means primarily close relations with Britain. We, too, wish to maintain close relations with South Africa.
I am sure that we were all moved by the sentiments expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) in his speech. But, to us, the Commonwealth means something more than a number of separate bilateral links between Britain and each of the members of the Commonwealth. To us, the Commonwealth is, above all, a collective multi-racial relationship in which we


consult together, think together and, as far as possible, work together for the advancement of broad, common objectives.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton that the Commonwealth of Nations, as its name implies, is an association of peoples and not only of Governments. For reasons which we all regret, South Africa will no longer be represented in this Commonwealth fellowship. We hope, however, that its absence will be no more than temporary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and that the time will come when, in changed circumstances, we shall be able to welcome back a representative of South Africa at our Commonwealth family table.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, we must not let it be thought that it makes no difference whether one is in or out of the Commonwealth. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton urged that South Africa should continue to take part in the consultative machinery of the Commonwealth. I am sure that none of us desires to disrupt long-established links with South Africa, but, as the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) said, we must be careful not to destroy the value of Commonwealth membership by giving to those who are not members all the privileges of those who are. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The withdrawal of South Africa, as the Leader of the Opposition said, has, naturally, give rise to anxieties about the future development and evolution of the Commonwealth. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) and other hon. Members expressed the view that the discussion of apartheid at the Prime Ministers' Conference had set a dangerous precedent for future interference in one another's internal affairs. They fear that this may encourage member countries to make charges and counter-charges, attacks and counter-attacks, against each other and that there will always be somebody in the dock.
If things were to develop in that way it would, of course, be quite disastrous. It would completely poison our relations, and would, no doubt, soon bring about the dissolution of the Commonwealth.

But I do not believe that those fears are well founded. The Leader of the Liberal Party said that the Commonwealth should not be regarded just as a cosy club, and I agree with him. It must, he said, stand for principles. I agree with him also about that, provided that we never attempt to define too precisely what those principles are.
The Commonwealth Prime Ministers have always wisely resisted the idea of establishing a code of conduct to which all members are required to conform. Our relations are governed not by a book of rules but by what has been described as a general concensus of opinion. But although there may be no precise definition of the principles for which the Commonwealth stands, there are certain things for which it clearly does not stand and which are incompatible with the whole spirit which inspires it. One of those things is the policy of apartheid as preached and practised in South Africa.
We must, of course, recognise that racial discrimination still exists in many countries of the world. Incidentally, these are not confined, as one might imagine by reading some newspapers, entirely to British Colonial Territories. But South Africa's policy is different, not only in degree but in kind. As the Leader of the Opposition said, there is a difference between precept and practice. Everywhere else outside South Africa Governments are trying, more or less successfully, progressively to eliminate racial discrimination between their citizens. In South Africa, on the other hand, discrimination and segregation have been elevated into a principle, an objective of policy, something to be proud of, an inspiring ideal.
Anyone who attended the Prime Ministers' Conference last week must have felt that on this subject Dr. Verwoerd was talking a totally different language from that of the rest of his colleagues. He is deliberately trying to swim against the whole current of world thought. He is trying to put history into reverse. It may be said that, however wrong and ill-conceived apartheid may be, it is South Africa's internal affair and does not affect her external relations with other members of the Commonwealth. It must, however, be


recognised that apartheid has aroused deep emotions throughout the world, and has ceased to be a matter of purely domestic concern.
But, quite apart from the wider considerations of humanity, it is clear that South Africa's racial policy and her attitude towards racial matters has become incompatible with the effective operation of the Commonwealth relationship. The Commonwealth is essentially an association of nations of different races and colours who have established a close and special relationship with one another. That close and special relationship can be maintained in one way only, and that is by continuous and intimate consultation between their Governments.
Yet, while applying for continued membership, the South African Government—and this is something which bit very deep into all other members—still firmly refuses to receive diplomatic representatives from any non-European members of the Commonwealth. This makes a mockery of consultation; and, in any case, we cannot accept that because of the colour of their skins certain members of the Commonwealth are to be treated as lepers.
By this refusal to have normal external relations with the African and Asian countries, even when they are members of the Commonwealth family, South Africa has herself carried the principle of apartheid into the international sphere.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The whole House is behind my right hon. Friend in what he is now saying. I mean that. But can he tell us whether any efforts have been made through diplomatic channels, or Commonwealth Relations channels, to get South Africa to change that point of view in the last eighteen months?

Mr. Sandys: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point, because I believe that it is crucial, and goes to the root of the trouble. I think that everyone realised at this Conference that it was a waste of breath to ask the South African Government to change their racial policies. The whole State and the whole policy is based on the conception of segregation and apartheid. But what nobody could really understand was how the South African Government could apply for continued membership of the Commonwealth and profess to

want to work together with other members of the Commonwealth and, at the same time, to say that because their faces are black or brown, or whatever it may be, they were not prepared to receive a High Commissioner or a diplomatic representative from Ghana, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, or Malaya. Clearly, that meant that they were not interested in the conception of the Commonwealth relationship as we understand it.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: My right hon. Friend has not answered my question.

Mr. Sandys: At this meeting this point was raised over and over again.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In the last eighteen months?

Mr. Sandys: In the last week. It has been raised over and over again.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I meant before that.

Mr. Sandys: It is a matter which has been going on for a long time. It has been the cause of friction and difficulty for a long time. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may bear me out when I say that if the South African Government, in the course of the Conference, had said not that they were going to do away with apartheid, but were going at any rate to make this gesture of receiving diplomatic representatives from other Commonwealth countries than European ones, it might have altered the whole atmosphere. [Interruption.] The noble Lord does not want to hear the other side of the argument.
Dr. Verwoerd has said that the withdrawal of South Africa would be followed by the disintegration of the Commonwealth. I must say something about that. I have no wish to hurt anybody's feelings. Had Dr. Verwoerd not raised the issue himself, I should have preferred not to discuss whether we would be worse off or better off for the departure of South Africa. Whatever view we may take of the events of last week, I think that we must agree on one thing—that the withdrawal of South Africa will have the effect not of dividing but of uniting more closely the nations of the Commonwealth.
It seems that the South African Government have not understood the


changed character of our modern Commonwealth association. The rôle of the Commonwealth is not to build a bloc of racially homogeneous nations. It is rather, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said, to build a bridge between peoples of all races and creeds. Its purpose is not to present a united front, but to provide a unifying influence in a deeply divided world. With the exception of South Africa, each of the members of the Commonwealth has its own circle of friends with whom it has some special affinity whether through geography, race, religion or alliance. These various circles of friends, when put together, embrace in one way or another the greater part of the globe. In fact, outside the Communist world there is scarcely any group of nations in which members of the Commonwealth do not play a leading rôle.
If, therefore, members of the Commonwealth can manage to evolve a joint approach to some of the great issues of the day they will be in a position to offer collective, multi-racial leadership of a kind which was never more needed than it is today.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to the declaration on disarmament, which I believe to be something of great importance.
I said "with the exception of South Africa", because she has progressively isolated herself, with the result that she

has no circle of friends whose good will she can bring into the common pool.
It is as painful to me to say these things as it is painful to the noble Lord, who is now leaving the Chamber, to listen to them. [An HON. MEMBER: "The noble Lord has expelled himself."] I do so only because I am determined to refute with all the power at my command the allegation that the Commonwealth is going to disintegrate. We must not minimise the gravity of the decision that has been taken by South Africa. But, at the same time, I am convinced that the consequences will be very different from what Dr. Verwoerd has predicted. What has happened was, I think, sooner or later, inevitable. Having now come through the crisis, there is no doubt that the unity and moral standing of the Commonwealth throughout the world will be increased.
Most of us here have been deeply stirred by the events of the last week. It is difficult to describe our emotions, because they are a mixture of sorrow, relief and confidence: sorrow at the severing of a long connection in peace and war with the peoples of South Africa of all races; relief that an issue which threatened to disrupt our association has been removed; confidence that the Commonwealth, now imbued with a greater sense of purpose, will go resolutely forward to fulfil its destiny.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — POLICE PENSIONS REGULATIONS

11.0 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr David Renton): I beg to move,
That the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.
The House will observe that the equivalent Scottish Regulations are in identical terms. I therefore suggest that it may be for the convenience of the House if both sets of Regulations are discussed together, although you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, at the end of the debate would no doubt put the Question on each separately.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Yes, if that will be for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Renton: As the Explanatory Note states, the Regulations are made under Sections 1 and 3 of the Police Pensions Act, 1948, and they are similar in form to previous Police Pensions Regulations and Amendment Regulations dealing with widows' pensions and children's allowances.
The draft Regulations introduce no new principle. Their purpose is simply to make an increase in certain widows' and children's benefits payable under Police Regulations corresponding with those increases in National Insurance benefits of a similar kind which were made by the National Insurance Act, 1960. These special provisions have to be made for about 8,000 widows and children of policemen, because the police were excluded from the contributory old-age pension scheme which was in existence before the National Insurance schemes—which were of universal application—was introduced in 1948.
The proposal in the Regulations is that the increased benefits should come into operation on 3rd April at the same time as the new National Insurance benefits. The effect of the Regulations in the case of the widows and children affected is to give increases corresponding to the National Insurance increases. The result will be as follows. A widow will receive 80s. per week instead of the 70s. which she now receives over and above her basic police widow's pension

for the first thirteen weeks of widowhood, and after the first thirteen weeks instead of receiving her present 50s. a week over and above the basic pension she will receive 57s. 6d.
As to the child's allowances, where both parents are dead it will be 32s. 6d. per week instead of 27s. 6d. For other children the children's allowances are increased by 5s. a week. The matter with regard to children's allowances is extremely complicated. There are various kinds of children's allowances, varying with various circumstances. In every case, however, the increase awarded by the Regulations will be one of 5s. per week.
On the last occasion when I had to ask the House to approve some Police Pensions Regulations I apologised for their complexity. I candidly do so again now. The Regulations are necessarily very complicated because of the provisions of the Police Pensions Act, 1948, with which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has some familiarity. The fact that they are complicated does not make it any less urgent for us to have the approval of the House for the Regulations so that widows and children of policemen to whom I have referred may receive their increased payments on 3rd April. This is what the Regulations will achieve, and I submit them to the House.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The hon. and learned Gentleman has explained to the House the object of these Regulations and has indicated that their nature is inherently complicated. What I want to say at the outset is that we on this side are in full agreement with the object of the Regulations and most anxious that these police widows and children should benefit when the arrangements come into force on 3rd April.
I should also like briefly to restate why, as I understand it, these Regulations are necessary. They are consequential upon the passage of the National Insurance Act, 1960. As a result of that legislation certain retirement benefits will be increased; but there are certain classes of police widows and children who do not qualify for those retirement benefits because the police service did not participate in the State contributory old-age pension


scheme before 1948. The Regulations now before us give power to make discretionary increases to the awards payable to those widows and children of the same amount as the National Insurance benefits which they cannot have.
For that reason, as I understand it, these Regulations have our full approval; but, for the information of the House, I should add that these Regulations have had a most chequered career. There are involved considerations of which the House should take notice and about which I hope the Home Office will soon think it necessary to do something.
The Scottish Regulations which we are considering are in substitution for two earlier sets of Regulations, both of which were withdrawn. In February, the original draft Regulations were considered by the Statutory Instruments Committee, and, as chairman of that Committee, I subsequently received a very courteous letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland pointing out that they contained a number of inaccuracies and as a result they would be withdrawn and relaid. They were, in fact, relaid together with an original draft of the Regulations relating to England. They were considered by the Statutory Instruments Committee, which drew attention to the fact that these Regulations have now become so complicated, as the hon. and learned Gentleman recognises, and are in such a state of obscurity that their consolidation is now long overdue.
I do not know if the House realises that the principal sets of Regulations have been heavily amended by some twelve sets of other Regulations, and that the corpus of this consists of some 555 Regulations, thirteen schedules, and an appendix. In view of that, the Statutory Instruments Committee pressed most strongly on the Government the urgent need for consolidation, but we were then met with the reply from the Home Secretary that under the Act there was no power to consolidate. A very surprising result, although research has shown that the plea for consolidation of these Regulations was made in another place as long ago as 9th December, 1952. It was then pointed out that if there was no power to consolidate, it followed that there was no power to amend. Therefore, the draft Regulations which were

then before the House were again withdrawn and we are now presented with, in the case of Scotland, a third set of Regulations. I make no comment on the fact that the earlier Regulations were withdrawn.
The section of those earlier Regulations which has now been omitted from the draft that we are considering would, I think, not have met with the approval of this side of the House, because that particular part of the earlier Regulations would have had the restrictive effect of limiting the police pension that can be awarded to a policeman who has had less than thirty years service to those who reach the age of 50, and therefore it would have rendered ineligible for pension certain policemen who otherwise would be eligible. But the fact that these Regulations have now been withdrawn and substituted twice really shows the chaotic kind of muddle into which they have come.
The House should know that the Special Orders Committee of the House of Lords thought fit, in its Report to another place, dated 22nd February, to make this observation:
The Committee recognise that the Secretary of State … has done what he can to guide the House to previous amendments … but the Committee are satisfied that the field of statutory instruments on which these Draft Regulations operate has by now got into a state of obscurity that renders it virtually impossible for the House to understand the amendments proposed.
This is not a new matter, because as long ago as 9th December, 1952, when some earlier amending Regulations were being considered in another place, Lord Lloyd, who was then the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, gave what I can only construe as being tantamount to an assurance that the consolidation of these Regulations was contemplated, or that if the Government were advised that there was no power to consolidate, amending legislation would be introduced. Nothing has been done since 1952. I gather that the Government are now fortified by recent opinion that it is, to say the least, highly doubtful whether there is any power to consolidate, and therefore the only remedy for this appalling chaotic state of the law is a short amending Bill which would give the Government the necessary powers.
In view of the fact that these Regulations have revealed this most unsatisfactory state of affairs, I hope that before the House parts with these Regulations we can have some assurance from the Home Office spokesman that he recognises the need for action and will give us a promise of a short Bill giving the Government the necessary power to put this branch of the law into some state of order.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Renton: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, may I first of all say that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) for several things; first, for saying that he agrees that these Regulations are necessary and have his full approval, and secondly for giving me the opportunity, in response to what he has said, to explain the position with regard to consolidation.
It is a fact that this matter was first mooted some years ago. The difficulty which we meet is this. The provisions of Sections 1 and 3 of the Police Pensions Act, 1948, are so obscure in their meaning and so unsatisfactory in their effect that, as he has pointed out, they have given rise to doubt among the lawyers as to their meaning. We are now advised that the Act does not permit the consolidation of the existing three previous sets of Regulations, and, of course, if these Regulations are approved, a fortiori it could not connect these with the three previous sets of Regulations either.
The Hon. Member threw doubt also on whether there was power to amend. On that I think there is no difficulty, because, in spite of the obscurity of the 1948 Act, the Interpretation Act of 1889 helps us on this question of power to amend, but does not get us over the doubt which has arisen with regard to the power to repeal and re-enact, which is what consolidation comes to. We are advised that the Act does not permit consolidation of the Regulations, and therefore this difficulty could be met only by changing the law.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked me to say that he is considering the possibility of introducing amending legislation at a con-

venient opportunity. I am glad to feel, in the light of what the hon. Member for Islington, East said, that if such amending legislation were introduced it would have his support and that he would help us to get it with the minimum of trouble. It would obviously be a very short Bill.

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. and learned Gentleman can be completely assured that he will have the full support of this side of the House in carrying a short Bill such as he envisages into law as quickly as possible.

Mr. Renton: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for that most helpful intervention. Meanwhile, we have to operate under the existing powers and these Regulations are needed. With that reply to the hon. Member, I ask the House for approval of this Motion.

11.17 p.m.

Sir James Duncan: I am sorry to intervene at this late hour, but I am not clear from what has gone forward between the two Front Benches whether it is necessary to amend the Scottish Police Pensions Regulations as well as the English ones. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has been very clear with reference to the English ones and mentioned the Scottish ones. The House is very grateful to him for bringing this forward.
If the Lord Advocate is to speak, I should like to know how many widows and children are to be affected in Scotland. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has re-referred to the English cases, and I think we ought to be told how many Scottish cases there are.

11.18 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. William Grant): I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) that the Act in force at the moment is a United Kingdom Act and any amending legislation would cover both countries. I am told that the number of widows and children affected is round about 1,600, but I cannot give an exact figure.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.
Police Pensions (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations, 1961 [draft laid before the House, 16th March], approved.—[The Lord Advocate.]

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Prestatyn, [copy laid before the House, 16th February], approved.—[Mr. Renton.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Guisborough, [copy laid before the House, 16th February], approved.—[Mr. Renton.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Warsop, [copy laid before the House, 1st March], approved.—[Mr. Renton.]

HOSPITAL FACILITIES, MONMOUTHSHIRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch: For some time now, I have been rather disturbed about the administration of the National Health Service in my constituency. I came to the conclusion that it would be advisable to refer to the case of Mr. Robinson because the facts would illustrate clearly what I have in mind when I speak about the working of the National Health Service in Monmouthshire.
Mr. Robinson, who lives in Oakdale in Monmouthshire, sustained an injury to his hand. The condition did not respond to treatment by the local doctor. The doctor thereupon advised Mr. Robinson that he should be examined by a specialist and made the necessary appointment. At the same time, Mr. Robinson was suffering from a hernia which could not be properly controlled by a truss. The specialist at Newport who examined him advised that an operation was essential, but he pointed out that there were no prospects, at any rate for some time, of Mr. Robinson being given a hospital bed in the County of Monmouth.
Mr. Robinson was over 70 years of age. He had been employed at the local colliery all his working life, and for many years he had been a colliery official. He had a little money, and he was in pain. He was suffering from the hernia and from the injury to his hand. The specialist pointed out to him that his only chance of an early bed was to go into a private nursing home. In the circumstances, Mr. Robinson agreed to that, and he was thereupon admitted to a private nursing home in Newport. He was operated upon. The operation was a success. He had excellent treatment. He does not require the refund of the money, about £77, which he had to pay for the treatment.
This is not an isolated case. I could give other cases of people requiring hospital treatment who are told that there are no beds vacant in the County


of Monmouth and that, in the circumstances, their only hope is to go into a private nursing home. People in the district are becoming very alarmed about the situation, and they are coming to the conclusion that almost anyone who wants hospital treatment must go into a private nursing home for it, if he has the money. The Old-Age Pensioners' Association for Wales has raised the matter and sent a protest to the Regional Hospital Board at Cardiff. This is not something new to the Regional Hospital Board, of course. For some years, it has been known that a hospital was required in Monmouthshire. There has been a huge waiting list for a long time. The chronic sick are in a very serious plight. There are scores and scores of disabled and chronic sick people who are unable to go into hospital.
As a result of Mr. Robinson's case, I took the matter up with the Minister some time ago, and he pointed out that steps were now being taken to deal with the situation. There was to be an extension of the Royal Gwent Hospital at Newport, and in the future hospital building programme a hospital was to be erected at Abergavenny in the north of Monmouthshire. No doubt, these developments will alleviate the position, but they will not cure it. The completion of the new steel works at Llanwern now in course of erection will create a big demand for beds in the Royal Gwent Hospital at Newport, and the Abergavenny hospital will be in the northern part of the county.
Quite apart from that aspect of the matter, this is a serious situation. There is a growing tendency on the part of medical men to advise people that there is no immediate chance of a bed in hospital, that they will have to wait some time, but, of course, if they are prepared to pay they can have private attention. It is becoming evident to the public that it is easy to be admitted into a private nursing home but it is very difficult to receive attention in hospital under the National Health Service. This is in a district where, before the National Health Service came in, there was a medical aid scheme between the persons employed at the colliery and their wives and the employers. If they required medical attention, if they required to consult a specialist or if they required hospital

treatment, they could get it under that scheme. Now, unfortunately, under the National Health Service, to which they contribute, many of them have to pay in addition for attention by a specialist.
I have taken this matter up with the Minister, and he has pointed out that steps have been taken to improve the situation as far as hospital treatment is involved. But it is not only a question of hospital treatment. I have a case of a young man, aged 25, who was in a rather serious condition. He consulted his doctor, and as it was thought he should be examined by a specialist. The doctor arranged it accordingly. The young man had to pay the specialist at Newport. The young man himself is in hospital, but his father alleges that the specialist asked for a fee of three guineas. The young man had been on sick benefit a long time and got £2 10s. a week. He paid the fee. Since then he has gone into hospital. He has not been charged in hospital, but he was charged three guineas for examination by the specialist. That is alleged by the father, and I have no reason at all to disbelieve it.
This is supposed to be a free medical service. In these circumstances, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary that an inquiry be held into the whole situation, for there are so many of these cases who have to go—if they have the money—to private nursing homes, when it is a question of fees having to be paid.
The Minister in his letter referred to the case of Robinson and said:
Certainly Mr. Robinson was entitled to be referred to the National Health Service specialists if their services were required, but he preferred to seek treatment elsewhere in view of the possibility of having to wait".
Mr. Robinson was over 70 years of age and in great pain. What did the Minister mean by "preferring to have attention" elsewhere? I can quite understand it if a person would rather go to a private nursing home or one hospital rather than another to have private treatment and has to pay a charge. There is no argument about that. But when a person's doctor says he requires attention, and he cannot get into a hospital, but can get examination at a private nursing home, what is he to do? Where is the preference? Where is the choice?
The position is getting worse. I know it is suggested that there should be new


building, but what is to happen meantime? One answer is to erect a new wing at the Royal Gwent Hospital, but in the meantime we have many cases requiring attention. The Government have been so long making up their mind through the Regional Hospital Board whether a new building is to be erected or not. We have had this position for some years, and it is getting worse. Many people have waited a long time for treatment and the position is such that it calls for an immediate inquiry.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to inquire into the position so that at a future date we may know what definite steps are to be taken to alleviate the situation, steps particularly arising out of the cases of Robinson and Grey.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I shall detain the House for only a minute or two, as I am sure the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary will need the rest of the Adjournment time to answer the very serious case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch).
There are two points, I think, to which the hon. Lady should address herself. The first is the very serious shortage—on my hon. Friend's showing—of hospital beds in Monmouthshire, which really must be one of the worst shortages in the country and which present plans are not going to alleviate.
The second point concerns something about which we have heard time and time again in the House, how patients going to consultants and expecting to be treated as National Health Service patients are persuaded to accept private treatment. I wish to ask, first, whether the man who persuaded Mr. Robinson to go into a private nursing home was a consultant with access to National Health Service beds, and, if so, in what circumstances was the persuasion exercised.
I understand that Mr. Robinson's examination took place in hospital. If the consultant was a National Health Service consultant and accepted a fee of three guineas for an examination in hospital, then I think the case needs to be very thoroughly gone into by the hon. Lady and by the Ministry.

11.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) based this case on the matter of his constituent, Mr. Robinson, but I think he agrees, and I certainly feel, that it widens into the broader issue to which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) has just referred—the provision of hospital beds in the area.
In the case of Mr. Robinson, he was referred by his own doctor for consultant advice for the injured hand. I understand that during the examination the consultant discovered that he also had a hernia which needed attention. Following the correspondence which the hon. Gentleman had with my right hon. Friend, the Minister explained that as Mr. Robinson was treated as a private patient we have no means of assessing at this stage what treatment might have been provided under the National Health Service.
I may say that inquiries have been made of the consultant following the hon. Gentleman raising this case, but the consultant says that he cannot remember the details. As it was a private transaction, I do not feel that there is much more that I can add. The position is that Mr. Robinson was certainly entitled to use the National Health Service, and if his case had been a surgical emergency he would have been admitted to the hospital bed at once. If he had been assessed as an urgent case, then there would have been a waiting period of some three to four months in this area. If he had been assessed as a non-urgent case the waiting period would have been up to two years.
I conclude that Mr. Robinson was a non-urgent case, that the consultant explained to him that there would be delay in his getting a hospital bed, probably considerable delay, and that therefore Mr. Robinson chose to be treated privately.

Mr. Finch: He was in great pain.

Miss Pitt: As I say, I have no details of the particular case. On the limited information available to me, that is the conclusion I must reach. It cannot have been a case of extreme urgency as otherwise the bed would have been available. The real crux of this whole problem is


the shortage of surgical facilities in the area.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of another constituent of his, Mr. Ivor Grey of Oakdale. I have no details of that case, of course. I am told that he is at St. Woolos Hospital. If the hon. Gentleman adds the address of his constituent, I am prepared to make inquiries into that instance.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the facilities for the chronic sick in his area in the context that the Robinson case had caused some concern to people of his age, the pensioners. I have looked into it, and I think that the position is reasonable. The Hospital Management Committee in the area in which the hon. Gentleman is interested, because it largely caters for his constituency, is Rhymney and Sirhowey.
There are in that area 181 beds for geriatric cases, that is, beds for the aged and the aged chronic sick. That represents 1·16 beds per thousand of the population, and comparing that with the whole of Wales the figure is 1·1, so the local area is rather better than the rest of Wales. Compared with England and Wales, the figure is 1·29, so it is slightly less favourable than England and Wales, but I think that this number of beds normally suffices to deal with the geriatric load, particularly if they are in charge of a consultant geriatrician, and I would inform the hon. Gentleman that such an appointment has been approved for this hospital group.
Coming back to the shortage of surgical facilities, which is the crux of the situation and accounts in particular for the difficulties Mr. Robinson experienced, the position at the Royal Gwent Hospital—which is the one to which Robinson would probably have gone because it is the main one for surgery—is that no emergency is turned away even if it means putting beds in the middle of the ward. As an example of an urgent case I might quote a cancer case; the patient would be admitted within two to four weeks. In non-urgent cases, for example, hernia, haemorrhoids and varicose veins with no complications, males would be admitted within a period of two years, and females within four to five years.
When there are any complications, or the likelihood of complications develop-

ing, or interference with occupation, they are admitted in approximately three months. The general practitioners in the area are also aware that in the case of any change in the conditions, needing earlier admission, they can report to the Hospital Committee, and the hospital would re-evaluate the priority.
Surgical facilities are provided in the Newport and East Monmouthshire Group in these proportions. General survery—239 beds; ear, nose and throat—65 beds; opthalmology—24 beds; gynaecology—57 beds. I have included the figures for ear, nose and throat, opthalmology and gynaecology because they also make demands on the operating theatre time, which is one of the difficulties here.
The provision for surgery, 239 beds for a population of 247,000, represents a provision of 0·97 beds per thousand population, which compares with the provision of 0·79 for Wales and 0·76 far England and Wales.
Newport hospitals cater a lot for patients from the neighbouring North Monmouthshire area, but if the two groups are aggregated the provision, 0·83 beds per thousand population, still exceeds the national average. In spite of this, waiting lists in the Newport and East Monmouthshire Hospital Management Committee area have gone up. The total waiting list for 1958 was 1,519; for 1959 it was 1,705; and for 1960 it went up to 2,074.
These figures are disturbing not only for the level at which they now stand but also for their precipitous growth, a clear indication that hospital facilities, albeit exceeding national averages, are insufficient. I have asked for a scrutiny of these figures in order to arrive at the reasons for the sharp increase in the last twelve months, and for checks to make sure that there is no duplication.
Beds are not the only delaying factor. Operating theatre facilities are inadequate, and this adds to the problem. The situation disclosed by the latest figures is more serious than had been estimated, and while the long-term solution must lie in additional building, it is recognised that first-aid measures to relieve the situation quickly are imperative. For some months now the Welsh Hospital Board has been trying to bring into use vacant beds and a little-used operating theatre at Mount Pleasant


Hospital, Chepstow, which was initially provided for thoracic surgery but is happily no longer needed. So far the Board's endeavours have come to nothing, because despite prolonged effort it has failed completely to recruit the necessary nursing staff.
Having failed to recruit nurses the Board has turned its mind to the alternative approach of secondment from other hospitals, but it is not possible at short notice to say what can be done in this way. The Board, however, is hopeful that it will provide a temporary solution. If the nursing difficulty, which is the main one, can be overcome, it is thought that the further hurdle of medical staffing can also be surmounted. In addition, the adaptation and upgrading of a further ward in St. Woolos Hospital, Newport, will increase the number of beds for gynaecology and surgery. These should be available towards the end of the present year.
The Hospital Board is also going into the possibility of diverting patients from Newport to outlying hospitals such as Ebbw Vale, the County Hospital, Griffithstown, Abertillery and possibly even Cardiff. It is thought that Abertillery and the County Hospital, Griffithstown have spare capacity, but this, again, requires close investigation which it has not been possible to carry out in the time available. All these and other possibilities are being thoroughly pursued in the hope of giving some relief.
As for long-term measures, two major schemes for development at the Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport have been announced in the 1958 and 1959 lists. This does not offer an immediate advantage—the scheme is still in its infancy, in the planning stages, and it will prob-

ably take five years—but when this work is done 64 beds in existing accommodation at the Royal Gwent Hospital will be released for surgery, and there will also be 14 additional beds at Panteg. When the work is complete the additional beds and new operating theatres proposed should rapidly overtake the waiting lists.
I should explain that a special feature of the situation at Newport is the extreme pressure on the casualty department arising from the vast industrial developments in the neighbourhood, to which the hon. Member for Bedwellty referred, notably the construction of the Spencer Steelworks at Llanwern. Measures agreed here to give immediate help will consist of converting an unused radiotherapy room into a temporary minor operating theatre and a temporary hutment will be erected adjoining the casualty department. This should come into use very quickly. The Regional Hospital Board fully recognises the position, and the problem of this area.
I have already explained that the provision of hospital beds is higher than for Wales as a whole, or England and Wales, although this is qualified by the fact that cases from North Monmouthshire come into the area. Even allowing for that, however, the number of beds is greater than elsewhere. The fact remains that there is a problem: the lack of operating space and pressure caused by local industrial conditions are two of the factors. Nevertheless, I can assure the hon. Member that we know of this problem, as does the Welsh Regional Hospital Board, and every effort is being made to try to meet it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Twelve o'clock.